Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Staff Budget

Peter Duncan: If he will make a statement on the budget for staff in the Wales Office.

Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the number of civil servants in his Department.

Paul Murphy: For the period since April 2001 the average staff of my Department has been 44 full-time equivalents. The running costs budget of the Wales Office is £2.279 million for each of the financial years from 2001–02 to 2003–04. Staff pay normally accounts for about two thirds of running costs.

Peter Duncan: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Is he aware that as the Wales Office staff complement continues to multiply, manufacturing industry in Wales is in crisis and jobs are haemorrhaging everywhere, it seems, other than inside the Wales Office? Does he not accept that increased staff numbers are no substitute for delivery on the long-broken pledges to the people of Wales?

Paul Murphy: On the increase in numbers, I can tell the hon. Gentleman, who has huge responsibilities as the only Conservative Member representing 112 Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, that in 1999-2000 I had 38 people working in the Department, last year the number was 45 and this year it is 44. Those are hardly huge numbers.
	On manufacturing, the hon. Gentleman might be aware that in today's edition of the Western Mail, the Cardiff chamber of commerce is reported as saying that the Welsh economy has returned to a firm footing, and in manufacturing in Wales, sales are up, confidence is up and orders are up.

Donald Anderson: May I say to my right hon. Friend that the people of Swansea certainly have no complaint about that? Indeed, we have every praise for the Government's willingness to move part of the Pensions Service for Wales to Swansea, creating 500 good quality, permanent jobs in an area of high unemployment.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. He is absolutely right to say that the Department for Work and Pensions move to Swansea has led to a considerable increase in employment. May I tell him that in his constituency, the claimant count is down by 1.1 per cent., and in Swansea, West it is down by 0.5 per cent? The House should know that the latest figures on employment in Wales indicate that unemployment is down by 7,000, the claimant count is down by 500 and employment is up by 6,000 since the last count.

Andrew Robathan: I thank the Secretary of State and his Department for their courtesy in giving me a week's notice that my question was grouped with Question 1, because that is very unusual with other Departments. May I pick him up on his figures? I have figures from civil service statistics which say that staff numbers in the National Assembly for Wales went up by over 20 per cent., whereas the number of his civil servants increased by over a third. Can he tell me exactly what improved service the people of Wales are getting from the increased numbers of civil servants in the National Assembly and in his own office?

Paul Murphy: Obviously, it is for the National Assembly to answer the hon. Gentleman on the matter that he has just raised. However, on public services, I believe that the money obtained from the Government by the Assembly means that billions of pounds have gone into the health service, education and local government.
	The hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that the purpose of the Wales Office is to ensure that the devolution settlement is protected, that the block grant is negotiated and that legislation affecting Wales is steered through this place. Only this Session we have had special Bills on health and education which affect Wales. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that at the last general election his own party was very much in favour of the retention of my office. That is something on which all parties in Wales agree, on the basis that we have to ensure that Wales is properly represented in the Cabinet and at all levels of government.

Denzil Davies: The report in the business section of today's edition of the Western Mail, to which my right hon. Friend referred, shows that optimism in manufacturing in Wales is now at a two-year high. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it gives the lie to those—including, sadly, some Ministers—who constantly denigrate the currency of the country in which they live?

Paul Murphy: I shall not be drawn into that argument by my right hon. Friend. I simply say that the claimant count in his constituency, Llanelli, has dropped by 1.1 per cent. The news that we have received for manufacturing industry in west Wales will benefit his constituents and many others as well.

Simon Thomas: How many of the Secretary of State's staff are working on objective 1 projects and financing? Does he agree that his Department will be measured on its success or otherwise in attracting objective 1 funding to Wales? Does he share my concern about the fact that Labour local authority areas such as Ogmore receive less money from objective 1 than those under Plaid Cymru control, and will he direct his staff's attentions to that?

Paul Murphy: The claimant count in the Ogmore constituency is down 1.7 per cent. and it has experienced one of the biggest unemployment reductions of any Welsh constituency. The hon. Gentleman's party never believed that we would get the objective 1 money, but we did, and there is about half a billion pounds extra in the block grant as a result of the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. He said that he would not let Wales down. We will not let Wales down either.

Greg Knight: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that in every other arena in the private and public sectors, offices are becoming leaner, more efficient and cost-effective by using new technology? Are not Wales and the Wales Office lagging behind the rest of the UK? Is he aware, for example, that only 27 per cent. of homes in Wales are connected to the internet compared with 45 per cent. in London and 35 per cent. in the rest of England? Therefore, should he not urgently consider ways to reduce the number of pen-pushers in his office and in the Welsh Assembly and use the savings to increase the number of people and services online in Wales?

Paul Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman is a little confused as to who does what in terms of the Wales Office and the National Assembly. We are talking about staff figures of 30 or 40—a tiny number that includes typists and people who answer the phone. My office is a slim operation and I have made it clear to the Welsh Affairs Committee that I am anxious to ensure that outside advisers have a look at the office to see whether people are being over-worked or under-worked, whichever might be the case.
	I shall write to the Committee about the result of the outside investigation in some weeks, but on the basis that I know that all the people in my office work very hard and very diligently. They are responsible for the legislation affecting Wales that goes through this place and they work every hour of the day. It is important for Members of the House to understand that.

Hospital Waiting Lists

John Baron: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister regarding central Government support for reducing waiting lists in Welsh hospitals.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the First Minister to discuss matters relating to the NHS in Wales. While the policy on waiting lists in Welsh hospitals is a matter for my colleagues in the National Assembly, the Joint Ministerial Committee and regular informal contacts ensure that there are opportunities to share best practice between the operation of the health service in England and in Wales.

John Baron: I thank the Minister for that reply, but given that the number of people in Wales waiting more than six months for their first out-patient appointment has increased eightfold since 1997, and given that the Secretary of State for Health yesterday appeared to want to disown Wales entirely, what responsibility will the Secretary of State for Wales take for resolving the looming crisis in the health service in Wales?

Don Touhig: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, as at 30 November, the number of people waiting for in-patient care in Wales has dropped. Indeed, the number waiting more than 18 months to be seen has fallen by over 4 per cent. What is important about reforming, changing and improving the health service in Wales is that the Labour party is committed to putting in the resources and the reform, but his party is not. Instead, it is committed to cutting public expenditure, which would mean a deterioration in the health service in Wales.

Chris Ruane: Is my hon. Friend aware of the latest health statistics on my constituency released by the Conwy and Denbighshire trust? There are no in-patients waiting over 12 months, no orthopaedic in-patients waiting over 12 months and no cataract patients waiting over four months. Will he join me in congratulating Conwy and Denbighshire trust's management and staff on that magnificent achievement?

Don Touhig: Yes. I endorse what my hon. Friend says and I can tell him and the House that my colleague in the Assembly, the Minister for Health and Social Services, has introduced a number of innovations to tackle the problems of waiting lists in Wales. Under her innovation and care programme, every trust now has an out-patient improvement manager and new booking systems are being developed using patient-focused bookings whereby the patient agrees to the hospital appointment time. A pilot system is being developed to prioritise patients waiting for orthopaedic treatment. It could be a forerunner of systems for other waiting lists in Wales and it is a progressive and welcome attempt to tackle the problems that we face in the health service.

Lembit �pik: Is the Minister aware that the Welsh Assembly has, only today, announced the waiving of 41 million of loan repayments by Welsh NHS trusts and health authorities? Does he agree that that money can be used to address issues such as waiting times and other problems in the health service? Finally, does he agree that, whatever the people of Ogmore may decide, they would be advised to choose between the deliverers rather than the whingers?

Don Touhig: I am aware that my Assembly colleague, the Minister for Health and Social Services, has announced today that NHS trusts and health authorities can start the new year on an even keel because she has written off the debt to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I endorse what she has done. It is important to ensure that the resources be provided for front-line care services. Currently, 3.5 billion is being spent on the health service in Wales49 million extra as a result of the Chancellor's pre-Budget report.
	On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I have no doubt that when the electors of Ogmore come to make their choice, they will elect a candidate who represents the party that is working for Walesthe real party of Wales, not the whingers.

Llew Smith: Although I welcome the increased health expenditure in Wales by the Government, does the Minister accept that hospital waiting lists could decrease dramatically if the Assembly stopped wasting money on projects such as the millennium arts centre in Cardiff bay and instead invested that money in the health service? Would that initiative have support in my hon. Friend's constituency, or are people queuing up in his surgery demanding yet another arts centre in Cardiff bay?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Don Touhig: I take note of the point that my hon. Friend and neighbouring Member of Parliament makes. The millennium centre will have a major economic impact across Wales, as it will attract tourists and employment and create industries in a fast-growing sector of the Welsh economic scene. We must bear in mind the fact that the Assembly's contribution to that project, which I think is about 37 million, is dwarfed by the 3.5 billion that is being spent on the NHS in Walesa further 49 million as a result of the pre-Budget report. It is important that we continue to invest large sums in the health service and accompany that with the reforms that will be enacted as a result of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which has just finished its passage through the House.

Elfyn Llwyd: I do not know whether the Minister has had time to read the curt and offensive remark his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made yesterday about not doing Wales. He said that one of the pleasures of his life was that he had nothing to do with Wales at all. What are the Minister and his right hon. Friend doing about the health crisis in Ogmore, for example? The Princess of Wales hospital is short of 140 members of staff. Perhaps he, too, is happy to wash his hands of Welsh health problems.

Don Touhig: The hon. Gentleman's reaction sometimes paints a poor picture of the Welsh people; we do have a sense of humour and we can afford a little laugh at ourselves sometimes.
	On the Princess of Wales hospital in Bridgend, I am aware that the candidate for the separatist party in Wales in the Ogmore by-election made that allegation yesterday, but so far we have not been able to trace the source of that information. As far as we are concerned, the health service in that constituency is doing very well, with a new hospital, the Royal Glamorgan general hospital, nearby. I think that the people of Ogmore will recognise that a Labour Government and a Labour-led Administration will deliver improvements to the health service in Wales. The hon. Gentleman's party will be thoroughly trounced and rejected come 14 February.

Nigel Evans: But it is a Labour Secretary of State for Health who said yesterday:
	It is one of the joys of my life that I am not responsible for all things Welsh-[Official Report, 22 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 739.]
	With 750 nursing vacancies, 10 per cent. consultancy vacancies, a massive increase since 1997, in those seeking a first hospital appointment, elective surgery being cancelled as bed spaces run out, and even accident and emergency patients having to wait several hours for treatment in both the Heath and Llandough hospitals in Penarth, does the Minister agree that if the buck does not stop with the Secretary of State for Health, it must stop with the Prime Minister?

Don Touhig: I am always in favour of the Welsh people being confident and taking pride in themselves.
	Sometimes the hon. Gentleman takes the biscuit. He supports a party that is committed to massive cuts in public expenditure. What would that do for the national health service in Wales? His party's record in government of running the NHS in Wales was one of hospital closures, fewer doctors, fewer nurses and fewer people treated. That situation is now being reversed, and he should rejoice in the fact that we are investing more in the health service in Wales and making a positive difference to the health of the people of Wales. It is about time that he gave credit where credit is due.

Nigel Evans: I do not rejoice in the fact that in Wales under the Labour Government we cannot say the words national health service unless they are followed by the word crisis. Even senior Labour Back Benchers do not believe that the ill thought out health reforms will help. One health trust last week cancelled 25 operations at short notice, and waiting lists continue to soar.
	In the Prime Minister's 1999 party conference speech, he stated that everyone would be able to see an NHS dentist by 2002. In Abergavenny, the waiting list to see an NHS dentist now includes 441 people. We know that, because the person at the bottom of the waiting list has been complaining in his local newspaper, the Abergavenny Chronicle. That person happens to be the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). Is it not about time that the Minister said sorry to him, and to everyone else in Wales who happens to be waiting on ever increasing NHS waiting lists?

Don Touhig: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman comes here month after month and does not learn anything. The cancelled operations occurred in Merthyr, when 25 patients had their hospital appointments cancelled owing to winter pressures. In an organisation that last year treated 667,000 people, there are bound to be problems and cancellations. We regret that, and we are sorry for the patients involved, but we are investing the right amount of money in the health service to improve it.
	With 72,000 constituents, has the hon. Gentleman never had to cancel an appointment? The hon. Gentleman is being invidious when he carps month after month about the problems of the health service in Wales, but offers no practical solutions. All he offers is cuts, cuts, cuts in the health service.

Crime

Ann Clwyd: If he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales.

Alan Howarth: What recent discussions he has had with other Ministers on measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales.

Don Touhig: Tackling crime is a priority about which I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, and with members of the Cabinet in the National Assembly. Yesterday, I had a useful discussion with David A'Herne, the crime reduction director for Wales, who is charged with implementing our key policies and initiatives on crime fighting and disorder. I hope before too long to arrange a meeting with Mr. A'Herne and all the Welsh Members of Parliament, at which he will give a briefing and take part in a question and answer session so that we can better understand the work that he is doing.

Ann Clwyd: The provision of closed circuit television cameras has been extremely beneficial in Cynon Valley, and has been welcomed by the public, who get greater security as a result, and by the police. In view of the increased demand for more CCTV cameras in our communities, will my hon. Friend consider giving extra money to local authorities, so that they can attempt to meet the growing demand?

Don Touhig: I take note of my hon. Friend's point. So far, 285,000 has been made available for CCTV programmes and initiatives in her constituency. All Members will agree that CCTV is an important contribution to tackling and reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. I discussed this matter yesterday with Mr. A'Herne, and I hope that some time in the future another tranche of money will become available so that we can expand CCTV coverage.

Alan Howarth: I know that my hon. Friend is in touch with Gwent police, and he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I also recently met them. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the remarkable work that they are doing on serious crime? Has he or my right hon. Friend discussed with Ministers in the Assembly the damaging consequences for policing in Gwent and elsewhere in Wales if the guidelines that the Assembly has issued to local authorities are not relaxed at least to take realistic account of the costs of maintaining existing levels of police activity? Has he or my right hon. Friend also inquired why Welsh local authorities should be so constrained when English authorities are not?

Don Touhig: As a Gwent Member, I pay tribute to the efforts of the Gwent police to reduce crime throughout our county.
	I know that my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently discussed the funding of the Gwent police with the chief constable. Along with parliamentary colleagues and colleagues from the Welsh Assembly, I met the chief constable last week and was given a very full briefing. Since then my right hon. Friend has raised the issue with the Assembly's First Minister, who will reply to the chief constable after further deliberations.

Hywel Williams: Will the Secretary of State press the Home Secretary to introduce a standard and honest way of measuring crime, so that standard and honest comparisons can be made between crime in north Wales and in other parts of Wales?

Don Touhig: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that crime has fallen throughout Wales. I think that that is due to initiatives taken by police services across Wales, and also to the funds that we have put in. There has been a considerable increase in the number of police officersthere have been an extra 206 in the past yearand funds have been provided for a further 259 until next year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, will welcome that, and will recognise that fighting crime is something in which all of usthe whole wider communitymust participate. We want to ensure that our police service has the tools and resources to achieve what is needed. [Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the Secretary of State to answer the next question, let me say that the House is far too noisy.

Economy

Hywel Francis: What discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales and Cabinet colleagues about the performance of the Welsh economy.

Paul Murphy: I meet the First Minister and Cabinet colleagues regularly to discuss a range of issues, including the Welsh economy. I welcome last week's labour market statistics, which show that unemployment in Wales fell by 7,000 over the last quarter.

Hywel Francis: The steel industry remains a vital part of the Welsh economy. I am sure that everyone will welcomeas I did in my constituencylast week's announcement of a 75 million investment in the rebuilding of the No. 5 blast furnace at Port Talbot, where, sadly, three men were killed in the recent explosion. No doubt the Secretary of State will welcome that excellent news for my constituency and for the neighbouring constituency of Ogmore, as well as the news that all but two of the injured steelworkers have been released from hospital. Does he share my hope that the new investment means a new beginning for the steel industry in Wales, and in particular a reaffirmation

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough for the Secretary of State to deal with today.

Paul Murphy: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he did on behalf of the families of the deceased and injured in Port Talbot. I went to Morriston hospital and saw some of the injured, and I also pay tribute to the medical team there.
	I entirely agree with my hon. Friend: the news that 75 million is to be spent on the new blast furnace at Port Talbot is great news for Port Talbot, and for the steel industry in Wales. It will safeguard 3,000 jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency. It represents part of the change in Welsh manufacturing that we have seen over the past few months, as a result of which 6,000 more people are now in work.

Roger Williams: Does not the fall in the three-month unemployment figures for Waleswhether it is measured on the basis of claimant or International Labour Organisation figurescompare favourably with increases in the United Kingdom generally? Surely it is a tribute to the Liberal Democrat-led partnership in Cardiff.

Paul Murphy: I think that it is a tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and what he has done to make our economy one of the strongest in the world, with interest rates and inflation at a record low. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency the claimant count is down by some 0.03 per cent., and in all but one or two Welsh constituencies unemployment has fallen dramatically in the past few months.

Employment (Cardiff, West)

Kevin Brennan: What recent discussions he has had about the use of European structural funds to create employment in Cardiff, West.

Paul Murphy: I meet Assembly Ministers regularly to discuss a range of issues, including progress with structural fund programmes in Wales. However, day-to-day administration and individual project approvals are matters for the National Assembly for Wales and its executive agency, the Welsh European Funding Office.

Kevin Brennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the potential of the Arjo Wiggins paper mill site in Ely in my constituency to create up to 2,000 jobs, and that it is next door to an area of high unemployment? There are long-term unemployment problems in Ely that we need to try to solve, so will he pledge the full weight of his Department, including himself, his junior Minister and all 44 of his staff, to work in partnership with the Assembly and the local authority to get the maximum job potential out of that site?

Paul Murphy: Yes, I will. That project, which is the result of a good working partnership between a Labour Government and a Labour-led Administration in Cardiff, will mean 1,000 jobs, 1,000 new homes, retail expansion, a new school and a district centre.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Chris Pond: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 January.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further meetings later today.

Chris Pond: The Government are investing heavily in public services, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we still need more nurses and teachers, and that we need them to be better rewarded? People working in schools and hospitals in Gravesham tell me that they welcome that new investment, but that our drive to improve standards in public services is placing them under extra stress. Will he do his very best to ensure that staff are properly rewarded, properly valued and fully respected?

Tony Blair: I pay tribute to our public servants and the work that they do in our schools, our hospitals and in public services up and down the country. As a result of the additional investment that is going in, we are increasing spending on health and education as a proportion of national income, we are employing more people in our public services, and public sector pay this year will outstrip private sector pay for the first time in many years. That investment also means that we are training and recruiting more nurses, more teachers, more doctors, more policemen and women. That of course is why it is so important to keep that investment going through the system and not to cut it back.

Iain Duncan Smith: Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health dismissed as fiction the fact that Rose Addis, the 94-year-old mother of my constituent, was left lying in casualty for days because the local hospital did not have a bed for her. Will the Prime Minister now apologise to Mrs. Addis for her treatment, and more particularly for the Secretary of State's comments?

Tony Blair: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman realises this, but the case that has been raised by the Evening Standard is strongly disputed by the hospital concerned. It disputes in particular the idea that Mrs. Addis was left untended for days. Let me read the letter that has been sent to the Evening Standard by the leading professor of medicine and consultants in that hospital:
	Your newspaper has this week published misleading and inaccurate articles denigrating our standards of care.
	To deride health staff publicly for a callousness of which they are innocent does real, lasting damage.
	Along with those we serve, we recognise the problems caused by years of underinvestment in the NHS. We welcome the fact that this is changing, but it will take time, commitment, optimism and imagination. Rather than the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party trying to denigrate everything in our national health service, let him for once applaud the people who work in the NHS, applaud the standard of care that they are giving and withdraw his allegation.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am rather pleased that the Prime Minister now chooses to use a letter written by those who apparently run the service. His Health Secretary did not bother to speak to my constituent, but if the Prime Minister had bothered to, he would have heard a quite different story. I am tempted to believe that story more than the stuff that he has pulled out.
	My constituent said that, after two days, Mrs. Addis's clothes still had not been changed. Her daughter had to borrow a bowl of water to wash the blood that had become caked on her mother's hands and feet. Those are the facts, not the hyperbole of a letter. Will the Prime Minister now apologise for his Health Secretary's comments in dismissing the case?

Tony Blair: I will not. The Leader of the Opposition says that he prefers the statement of his constituent to the statement that I have made, but it was the staff at the hospital who made the statement, not I. In addition, the two other cases raised by the same newspaper are in dispute.
	The right hon. Gentleman was not present when his constituent was treated, and neither was I. However, I do not think it right for the right hon. Gentleman, in circumstances where the staff issue such a strong denialand they strongly deny the allegations that the right hon. Gentleman has just madeto use the case to run down the national health service. No one should be in any doubt about why the Conservatives want to use such cases, disputed as they are, to run down the national health service. They use them because they want to say that the NHS has failed, that no one gets proper treatment, and that we should therefore get rid of a service on which so many people depend. They also want to say that the extra investment is worthless.
	The truth is that the extra investment is providing new resources, more nurses, the refurbishment of accident and emergency departments, and new hospitals up and down the country. The worst thing that could happen to the health service is to go back to the Tory policy of cut, cut and cut.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Government have been in power for nearly five years, and it is so illuminating that the Prime Minister can never apologise for anything that has been done. If he would like to talk again to the staff involved, and to my constituent, he would find that what the letter from the hospital manager called a separate A and E wardthe space where Mrs. Addis's mother was putturns out to be nothing more or less than a corner of the casualty room. The manager reclassified the space, instead of moving the patient.
	Because the Government manipulate the figures, the reality is that there is a far bigger problem. Hospitals are now forced to manipulate patients. It is not just a matter of casualty wards being changed. Appointments are being offered to people on holiday so that their waiting times can be cancelled. Is the Prime Minister really proud of the culture of deceit that is now the hallmark of his health service?

Tony Blair: First, according to the hospital, the patient to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers was kept in a medical assessment unit. The hospital states that that is a perfectly proper way of looking after her.
	Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman knows that in-patient waiting lists have fallen by more than 100,000 since this Government came to office. Under the previous, Conservative, Government, those lists rose by 400,000. Under the Conservatives, the numbers of nurses and doctors in training and the number of beds were all cut. In the past year, this Government have been increasing the number of beds, and we have increased the number of nurses and doctors in training.
	The difference between the Government and the Opposition is very clear. That was evident from the right hon. Gentleman's interview a few days ago in the Financial Times. He believes that we should cut back on the extra investment, that we should give the money to people in tax cuts and that they should then fund their own health care. We believe that health care is best funded out of general taxation, and provided through the national health service.
	The right hon. Gentleman therefore has to run down the health service and denigrate the activities of all those dedicated nurses, doctors and consultants to make the political case that the Tory party has been after since the inception of the health servicethat is, to get rid of it.

Iain Duncan Smith: We get promises, promises, promises, but never any delivery. The Prime Minister talks about people running down the health service, but the Government have been in charge for more than four years. More illuminating is what my constituent said to me at the end of the conversation. She said that there were three generations of Labour voters in her household. They wrote to the Prime Minister to congratulate him on his election. They expected much more. Mrs. Addis's daughter also said to me:
	If my poor mother had been a dog she would have been treated better.
	[Interruption.] That is what the Labour party does: it shouts down people who have a problem in the health service. Mrs. Addis's daughter went on to say:
	We have never been so disgusted with any Government as this one.
	Does she not now speak for all those who have suffered, and continue to suffer, in the health service?

Tony Blair: Let me repeat what I said to the right hon. Gentleman in reply to his earlier questions. Those facts are totally disputed by the hospital in question. Before coming to a judgment, it might just be as well if the right hon. Gentleman actually listened to what the hospital said, too.
	In respect of the national health service, however, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what people say. Yes, there are examples of poor treatment within the national health service. There are some 5.5 million operations a year and some 270 million doctor's appointments, but the vast majority of people who use the health service say that people get an excellent standard of care.
	As a result of the extra investment going into the health service, waiting lists are coming down, there are more nurses, there are more doctors, and more hospitals are being built. The question is: is it better to carry on putting that investment into the national health service or take it back out? In the debate yesterday, the Conservative health spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), was asked that question. The Leader of the Opposition has been asked it several times in the past few days. Now let us have an answer. We are prepared to put this extra investment in, year on year on year; is he?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Meg Munn: What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to support the process of reconstruction in Afghanistan?

Tony Blair: The most important element of this process is reconstruction in Afghanistan. The aid conference has pledged a very substantial sum of money to reconstruction in Afghanistan; I welcome that. The British armed forces are of course playing a vital role in helping to stabilise the security situation. I believe that we now have the same international coalition in favour of reconstruction in Afghanistan as we had in favour of removing the hated Taliban regime. That is excellent news, not least for the people in Afghanistan.

Charles Kennedy: Would the Prime Minister acknowledge that there are people in all political parties who think that his current proposals for the next step in reforming the House of Lords are at best halfhearted and at worst half baked? Would he therefore, on that basis, agree to all-party talks to see whether we can find some consensus for a properly democratic House of Lords, fit for modern Britain?

Tony Blair: I entirely accept that there are people in different parties with different views; that of course is the nature of the debate. If a consensus could be found, that would be excellent. Having read the debates in this place and in the other place, having heard of the savaging that the Leader of the Opposition got from his own peers yesterday, and remembering that the legislation must pass through both Houses of Parliament, I am afraid to say that, at the moment at any rate, we are quite a long way from that consensus.

Charles Kennedy: Surely the Prime Minister is aware of the irony of the situation, given that if he went for an overwhelmingly elected second Chamber he would have the majority support of his own party, he would have the majority support of Liberal Democrats andheaven forbidhe would even have the support of the leader of the Conservative party these days. That being the case, why does he not see the merit of proceeding on that basis, instead of just trying to introduce a hashed-up job of patronage, based on placepeople?

Tony Blair: I have no intention of not listening to the consultation; indeed, we are going to listen to the consultation. If people think that we are simply going to try to railroad through proposals, they are wrong. [Hon. Members: Oh.] They are. It will be for every Member in the House to reflect carefully.
	I read the reports of the debates in this place the other day and in the other place. I read the speeches, for example, of several of the Members who spoke from the Conservative Back Benches. They did not agree with the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition. I spoke to many people who[Interruption.] Well, it is true that there are different views in all parts of the House. If we can find a consensus on the way forward, fine, but the fact that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with those proposals does not mean to say that he can carry his party with him, as he found out yesterday.

Anthony D Wright: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the publication last week of the chief medical officer's report on ME, which has recognised for the first time that
	ME is a genuine illness,
	and that
	existing controversy cannot and should not be used as an excuse for inaction or unsuitable practice?
	Will he further congratulate all national and local ME groupssuch as BRAME, which is based in my constituency and run by Tanya Harrison, an ME sufferer, and her mother, Christineon their many years of campaigning and the support that has been given to other ME sufferers?

Tony Blair: I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on the campaign that they have waged over a significant period, and I am pleased that the significance of ME is now properly recognised.

Peter Tapsell: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the recent report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which predicts that the euro is likely to continue to be a weak currency, and the statement by Mr. Alan Greenspan that the prime reason for the weakness of the euro is what he describes as the unrelenting flow of capital from continental Europe to the United States? Does the Prime Minister disagree with those two assessments?

Tony Blair: I am afraid that I certainly disagree with the assessment, if the hon. Gentleman is implyingI know that he is strongly opposed to the single currencythat the single currency could in no circumstances be of benefit to this country. But where he is right, in a sense, and certainly Mr. Greenspan is, is that it highlights the importance of economic reform in Europe. Now the question is: are we better placed to deliver that economic reform in Europe by constructive engagement or by the position of total isolationism favoured by the Conservative party?

Michael Clapham: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the appalling decision that was made in the Appeal Court on 13 December in the Fairchild case? The judgment effectively means that a person suffering from mesothelioma cancer, who has been exposed to asbestos and has worked for more than one employer where he has been so exposed, cannot claim compensation on the grounds that it cannot be determined where the fibre that caused the malignancy came from. In effect, the judgment has overturned the apportionment principle in the courts, and it is causing great trauma to the sufferers of mesothelioma cancer and their families. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether there is now a need, bearing in mind that the Court of Appeal declined leave to appeal to the House of Lords, for legislation to reverse that decision and to establish the principle of apportionment in all cases of multiple exposure?

Tony Blair: I understand the concern that my hon. Friend raises. I also understand that the relevant Department is studying the implications of the judgment to which he refers.

Desmond Swayne: The waiting time for a hearing test at the Lymington hospital in my constituency remains pretty constant, at 33 months. It is the only specialty in which the over-85-year-olds are given priority, in the hope that some of them will get one before they die. What action will the Prime Minister take to ensure that the New Forest primary care trust is empowered to take over that problem from the Southampton trust, because it wishes to explore innovative solutions involving a partnership with the private sector?

Tony Blair: I do not know the details of the particular circumstances that the hon. Gentleman talks about, but of course the very purpose of setting up the primary care trusts is to enable innovative solutions to be found. That is why it is so unfortunate that the Conservative party did not support their creation; but on whether such things are done by that primary care trust or elsewhereas I say, I do not know the particular case that he alludes toagain, I say to him that if we want better treatment inside the national health service, then we have to put in the investment, because there are capacity constraints within the NHS: an insufficiency of consultants and nurses, bedsoccasionallyand doctors. Of course, we want to put in that investment, and I am afraid that, a few days ago, the Leader of the Opposition tied the Conservative party to exactly the position that it was in before the last electionopposition to that investment.

Tony Wright: Does the Prime Minister recall a famous warning many years ago about private affluence and public squalor? Should not the fourth largest economy in the world be able to boast some of the best public services in the world? Will he explain to people that they will get only the services that they are prepared to pay for and that, just as it took a decade of sustained reductions in public investment by the Conservative party to get the country into its current condition, it will take a decade of sustained investment by the Labour party to get the country out of it?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to say that we need sustained investment. It is important that we have that sustained investment on the basis of what is now the fourth largest economy in the world. We have produced economic stability, lower interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment precisely as the result of our economic measures. Then we were able to get the investment into education, then into the national health service and it is now coming into the transport services and law and order. It is important that we recognise that we need to sustain that investment. However, I know that my hon. Friend would also want to point out that, as the recent international survey showed, this country is now in the top eight for its education system in virtually every main subject.

Iain Duncan Smith: How many different transport plans are the Government currently working on?

Tony Blair: We have the one plan that was announced by the Strategic Rail Authority.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister wants to go back and check with his staff. There is the 10-year plan that the Transport Secretary pointed out never starts but is now under review again a week later; there is Lord Birt's plan; there is No. 10's plan; and today we discover that the Chancellor has got his own plan. Rail passengers know that they suffered a 75 per cent. increase in delays in December and they know that the Prime Minister's Transport Secretary has not even got a plan. One thing is sure: if no one trusts the Transport Secretary and if even the Prime Minister does not trust him, as he spent two hours telling him, why does he have him?

Tony Blair: The plan is outlined by the Strategic Rail Authority and it is a plan for investment over a number of years. What the right hon. Gentleman referred to in relation to the Treasury are merely the normal discussions for the comprehensive spending review. Those discussions would take place whatever Government were in office.
	The difference between us is again the issue of investment. I have to warn the Conservatives that when they keep raising the issue of public services, I welcome that. Let them keep raising the issue of public services because, in the end, there is a very simple choice. We believe in sustained investment in education, health, transport and law and order; they believe in taking that investment out.
	What the right hon. Gentleman committed himself to a few days ago would mean that people would pay less in tax and would have more, as he said, to spend on the public services that they choose. What he means is that they will get a tax cut and will then have to go and buy their health care, buy their education and buy their security. The problem is that, although that may work for the top 10 per cent. of the population, the other 90 per cent., who rely on decent, properly funded public services, will not get them. So let the Conservatives carry on raising the issue of public services. Let that be the issue at the next election, because the result will be the same as at the last one.

John McDonnell: Does the Prime Minister recall that, eight weeks ago, the Transport Secretary announced the construction of terminal 5 at Heathrow in my constituency and also offered a cap on flight movements? Yet today it is reported that the Government are considering a third runway. Can the Prime Minister assure my constituents that, in any decision, their environment will be protected?

Tony Blair: Of course I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. However, the reports in the newspapers today were complete speculation.

Jacqui Lait: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell my constituents in Beckenham whether Ken Livingstone's proposed increase of 35 per cent. in the precept for the Greater London Authority is a fair and reasonable settlement, or is it a stealth tax?

Tony Blair: It is for the Mayor of London to propose the charges. I am afraid that the Labour candidate was not successful in the mayoral elections, as I know only too well. If the hon. Lady wishes to have a lower charge, she should take the same position as Labour Members of the Assembly. They are trying to make sure that the Mayor's plans are more responsible.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does the Prime Minister share my horror at the death of Laura Touche, following the delivery of her twins in the private Portland hospital, because of a basic failure of nursing care? Can he assure the House and the country that in addition to the improvements that we are making to the national health service, about which he has spoken, he will also look at improving the quality of care in the private sector?

Tony Blair: Of course it is important that we make sure that proper minimum standards of care are adhered to, whether in the public sector or the private sector. I do not know the position of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, and our sympathies obviously go to her constituent and her family. However, with a health care system that has 5.5 million operations and 270 million GP appointments, it is important that we do not get to a positioneither in the public or the private sectorin which we use every instance of where the treatment has fallen down to say that that is typical of the whole health care system. It is important to have balance. There are, of course, cases of poor treatment, but they tend, in the public or private sector, to be the exception, not the rule.

Matthew Green: The Prime Minister will know that at 16 young people are considered old enough to marry, to have children, to pay taxes and to join the armed forces, yet they are not allowed to vote until they are 18. Does he consider that those things are a lesser responsibility than voting? Will he meet me and a group of young people from a range of youth organisations to discuss reducing the voting age to 16?

Tony Blair: I am not sure that we would always want 16-year-olds to do all the things they can do. I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the voting age. I think that it should remain as it is.

Candy Atherton: My right hon. Friend will understand the anger felt in Cornwall at Railtrack's decision to close the one rail link into the county over the Easter holiday. Will he intervene and urge it to think again?

Tony Blair: I do know of the concern that has been raised. I am sure that it will be studied by the relevant Department, although ultimately, of course, the decision is for the private rail company.

Hywel Williams: Is the Prime Minister satisfied with his industrial relations policy, which has led to workers who were on strike at Friction Dynamics in my constituency being sacked after eight weeks? Now, 40 weeks on, they are still waiting for a resolution of the dispute. Is it his policy to deny justice and then to delay it?

Tony Blair: I do not know about the particular dispute in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I believe that the industrial relations settlement that we brought about in the past few years strikes the right balance. People have the minimum wage in place. They have the right to join a trade union and, in circumstances in which there is a majority who wish it, the right to trade union recognition. New provisions for consultation and information are also coming in. I do not believe that we should go back to the industrial relations days of the 70s, which is the implication of his question.

Stephen Hepburn: Will the Prime Minister pay tribute to Niall Quinn, not just because he plays for the greatest team in the world, but because of his unselfish decision to donate the proceeds from his own tribute game to charity? Is not that magnificent gesture on the part of Niall a perfect example to his fellow pros and, indeed, the many thousands of youngsters who see footballers as heroes? Will the Prime Minister visit the Stadium of Light before the end of the season to thank Niall personally on behalf of all those charities that will receive the money?

Tony Blair: I do not always praise Sunderland footballers, as my hon. Friend knows. However, Niall Quinn is a constituent of mine and I am absolutely thrilled that he has decided to donate so generously to charity. It is typical of the individual. In circumstances in which people in sport often get a lot of bad publicity, I agree that this is an example that we can hold up to everyone.

Nick Hawkins: In Zimbabwe, with Mugabe imprisoning his political opponents and expelling all overseas journalists, what more needs to happen before the Prime Minister will lead the campaign to expel Mugabe's Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth?

Tony Blair: As we made absolutely clear, we totally deplore what is happening in Zimbabwe. The actions of Mugabe are a disgrace to his own country and also badly affect the reputation of the whole of southern Africa. However, in order for a motion to succeed at the Commonwealth to expel Zimbabwe, it is necessary to get all the countries supporting it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working urgently and energetically with all other countries to make sure that the policies of Mr. Mugabe are reversed and that proper and democratic elections are held in Zimbabwe.

Bill O'Brien: My right hon. Friend is on record demanding increases in the survival of the environment and wishing to ensure that recycling is paramount in that programme. Is he aware of the problems that local authorities, which are responsible for waste collection and disposal, are experiencing with the disposal of fridges? We want to ensure that they get support from the Government. Will my right hon. Friend take it upon himself to ensure that we get that support for local government so that we can clear the backlog of fridges deposited with local authorities?

Tony Blair: I entirely accept the problem to which my hon. Friend is drawing attention. As I understand it, it arose in part because it was not until June 2001 that the regulations were finalised. It is important that my hon. Friend recognise that we are providing a dedicated sum of money, about 6 million, to try to ease that situation. Of course, we will do whatever we can; I entirely accept that there is a problem. We have got the resources and I am sure that the relevant Department is working on the right strategy to deal with it.

Steve Webb: Is the Prime Minister aware that many thousands of elderly people in residential care are living on pocket money of 16 a week or less, forcing them to choose between buying a present for a grandchild one week and being able to buy daily newspapers? Does he accept that that is an undignified way for anyone to spend their declining years, and will he stop it?

Tony Blair: I do accept that it is important that we get more resources into care and to elderly people, which is why the Government have made substantial additional provision for pensioners, both in care homes and the national health service. However, there is always a limit on the amount of money that we can spend. I was talking about Conservative proposals a short time ago; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has come across a recent interview with the leader of his party, in which he said that he would like to go into the next election favouring lower taxes.

Charles Kennedy: indicated dissent

Tony Blair: If The Guardian has misquoted the right hon. Gentleman, I understand. In the end, there is a finite amount of money, but it cannot be disputed that, if we take the additional money for care in the national health service for pensioners, we are making substantial additional provision available. But yes, it is true that we could always do more.

Army Attributable Pensions

Lewis Moonie: As Minister with responsibility for veterans affairs, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the House to offer a statement, both to clarify the matter of the taxation of attributable Army invaliding pensions and to give an apology.
	Service personnel retiring on ill-health grounds are eligible for a war disablement pension from the War Pensions Agency if their illnesses or injuries are attributable to service. Since 1973, personnel have also been eligible for a service attributable pension under the armed forces pension scheme. Before 1973, pensions were paid early to those invalided out of service. Those pensions should be tax free when the injury is attributable to service.
	Owing to an administrative error by the Army pensions office, following, I believe, a change of legislation in the early 1950s, a number of Army pensioners have had their attributable invaliding pension mistakenly taxed. This has therefore affected such attributable pensioners over a period of some 50 years. The error is deeply regrettable, as is the time that it took to identify it. We offer our unreserved apology to those pensioners who were affected and to the relatives of those who died before we were able to make restitution.
	The error was recognised in 1998 as a result of the efforts of an Army pensioner, Major John Perry. Major Perry deserves to be commended, as it was his efforts and persistence that brought the error to light. It is unfortunate that his early complaints were not dealt with satisfactorily. He appealed, and when his case was brought to the attention of the central pensions policy branch at the Ministry of Defence, the error was recognised and the points at issue conceded in 1998. Ministers were made aware of the error in September 1998, and Parliament was informed of progress on rectifying the mistake on 8 June 1999 in answer to a parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker).
	The Government are not merely reacting to today's news. The issue has not arisen in the past couple of days. I am pleased to report that, since 1998, the Ministry of Defence has taken extensive measures to identify pensioners and their widows who might be affected and to ensure a refund from the Inland Revenue. That has included the manual trawling of the records of more than 20,000 pensioners and widows. Information has been provided to ex-service and war widows associations, which have been most helpful in advertising the mistake and the mechanism for applying for a refund.
	The Royal British Legion publicised the error to its 600,000 members in its magazine Legion in January 1999. The War Widows Association circulated information to its 55,000 members at about the same time. Importantly, we believe that we have identified the majority of those affected, but I have to say that we are keen to find any we might have missed. These people have paid tax when there was no need for them to do so and that is wrong. We have a duty to rectify the situation and to provide recompense. It is not possible to give a precise estimate of the final cost of refunds until all claimants have been identified and paid. However, our current assessment is that the total cost may be in the order of 30 million.
	It is important to note that the mistake did not apply to the same category of pensioners from the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. In the past, the administration of the different service pensions was entirely independent and there was a lack of co-ordination in addressing such matters. Policy functions are now centralised and I believe that an error of this sort is significantly less likely.
	The Ministry of Defence intends further publicity to ensure that those affected have the opportunity to recover the tax they have incorrectly paid. We have so far identified 1,003 affected cases. Refunds have been made in all but 26 of those cases, in which the details are still being clarified. Any pensioner in receipt of an invaliding pension between 1952 and now who believes that they may have been affected by this error should write to the Army Pensions Office in Glasgow.
	The error is deeply regretted and I look forward to informing the House when all cases have been satisfactorily settled.

Desmond Swayne: I thank the Minister for his statement and associate the Opposition with the deep regret that he expressed and his apology to those who have been affected. It is as well to remember that these are vulnerable people to whom we owe a great debtnow in more senses than one.
	I was surprised, though, when I discovered that a statement was to be made on this matter today. There were any number of issues on which I might have expected a statement from Defence Ministers, not least of which is Paul Bergne's view of the chaos at Bagram airport, or the A400M. Why are we being given a statement todayand especially one that has been so heavily trailed in the BBC and The Daily Telegraph? [Interruption.] It is all very well for Labour Members to moan, but I recall what the Minister said in his written answer of 7 November, which appears to have been definitive on the matter. Having given an abridged version of the statement that he has just made, he stated:
	All those identified as being incorrectly taxed, except a small number of cases currently under investigation, have received a full refund with compensation. The Ministry of Defence has no plans to undertake further action on this matter.[Official Report, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 250W.]

Andrew MacKinlay: So he's surprised you.

Desmond Swayne: He has surprised me, and I should like to know what has happened between 7 November and today to prompt this statement. One would hate to think that it was another instance of news management being used to cover up some other bad news.
	None the less, I think that this is a very important matter and I welcome the opportunity to ask a number of questions about the way in which the Government have conducted their inquiry.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) tabled a parliamentary question as a consequence of a constituency case that had been brought to his attention. I want to ask several questions, and I ask hon. Members to bear with me because we are considering complex matters. The Army personnel centre wrote to my hon. Friend's constituent, Major Richard Leigh Perkins of the Royal Leicestershire Regiment, on 9 October 1998 to tell him that the problem might apply to him. After further correspondence, my hon. Friend wrote to the Minister on 24 September 1999, saying:
	This concerns me greatly as many of these pensioners are already extremely elderly and indeed may not survive until the review is completed. There surely needs to be a greater sense of urgency in reviewing all these cases.
	I certainly agree.
	When my hon. Friend's constituent applied for compensation, he was told that his disability pension was not paid to him as result of his being disabled while in service. It took two years to get a tribunal to overturn that finding and to rule that he was entitled to the compensation. He was then toldwould you believe it, Mr. Deputy Speaker?that any payment in excess of the past two years would be taxed as a result of Treasury rules.
	That is surreal. We have reached the circumlocution office. The payment has to be made because it was mistakenly taxed, but any amount in excess of the two years will have to be taxed because of Treasury rules. I know that the Minister will confirm that those rules do not apply, because we are considering a Government mistake. [Interruption.] It is all very well Labour Members shouting, but vulnerable people are not aware of the facts and the compensation that may be payable to them.
	People such as Major Perkins have still not been paid, notwithstanding the Minister's statement. They believe that burdens are being placed on them and that the matter is cloaked in secrecy, to use their words. The hon. Gentleman will have read the bitter words of Major Perry in The Daily Telegraph today. I ask him to bear in mind the fact that many of our veterans feel bitter; we must make every effort to dispel that feeling.
	How many other people like Major Perkins are there? What action is the Minister taking to ascertain whether other people are waiting for compensation? What action is he taking to ascertain the number of widows who may require compensation? What is he doing to ensure that the families of those who have subsequently died and are owed compensation are identified and notified of what might be available?
	The Minister has said that he estimates that the problem may cost 30 million to rectify. Will he confirm that that cannot be charged to the defence budget, but will come out of the Treasury's contingency reserve? Will he also confirm that it will not affect what may be available for the defence budget?
	I ask the Minister to redouble his efforts to identify people who may be owed outstanding payments. They are among our most vulnerable and most deserving people.

Lewis Moonie: rose

Andrew MacKinlay: Tell him to go away.

Lewis Moonie: What temptation.
	I thank the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) for his early remarks and I apologise to Conservative Front-Bench Members and to the Liberal Democrats for the tardiness in showing them a copy of the statement. I gave it to them not long after I received the final version.
	When there is great public interest in an issue, it is incumbent on the Government to consider it carefully and provide amplification and clarification, especially when it is based on thin information. Many details were substantively inaccurate.
	I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Major Perkins's benefits were reviewed as part of the exercise, but as the War Pensions Agency had not accepted his invaliding condition as attributable to service, no corrective action was required and his pension remained taxable. Following a successful appeal by Major Perkins, the agency accepted that his condition was attributable to service, but it did not backdate the assessment to the date of his retirement. It was effective only from 25 August 1999.
	The degree of Major Perkins's disability was assessed at nil per cent., and notification of this award was received. That might sound complicated, but it is done in that way so that, if there is a change in his condition, the level of the award can be raised at a future date. Arrangements have been made for Major Perkins to receive a refund of tax paid since 25 August 1999, but that was not backdated to the date of his retirement. I am looking closely at this issue at present, and I can assure him and his Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), that the matter will be dealt with as quickly as possible.
	The numbers still to be found are difficult to quantify. We have looked at more than 20,000 recordsabout 23,000, I thinkand found 1,000 people who were liable for a repayment. Of these, 182 came from the period before 1973of whom 73 are widowsand 785 from the period since that date, of whom two are widows. Widows represent about 5 per cent. of all those whom we are considering, which leads me to wonder whether there are more widows among the records that we have not been able to access, probably owing to the people involved having died some time ago. If the hon. Gentleman had listened a bit more carefully to my statement, he would know that we have taken great care to publicise this provision through the War Widows Association. That publicity has gone to 50,000 war widows as a consequence, and I hope that they, in turn, will have talked to others about it.
	With regard to whether I should take further action, that was not thought necessary in November. However, I have looked at the matter again, and I believe that, because the Government are responsible collectively for what was done in their name in the past, we should leave no stone unturned in attempting to find any further people who are liable, and ensuring that they are given payment. On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I can tell him that the costs will be borne by the Inland Revenue.

Jimmy Hood: I thank the Minister for making this statement. The news that we have had this week beggars belief, and it is important that we should have a statement in the House, because the public need to know how the MOD has been treating our armed forces. The Ministry should not get away with it, and I hope that the Minister will tell the House not only that we are prepared to pay back the money that we have robbed from pensioners, but that the heads of those responsible in the MOD will roll.

Lewis Moonie: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall look at this matter very carefully. The administration of pensions in the armed forces was changed in 1996 or 1997; I am not sure of the exact date. Much of that administration was centralised at the time, and the day-to-day administration of the three pension societies was brought much closer together. As a consequence, and because we are taking a close view of what happens in our pensions department, this kind of mistake should not happen again. The original mistake took place about 50 years ago, and it would probably be a waste of Government resources to attempt to identify who was responsible at the time. Once such a mistake becomes institutionalised, it is accepted as fact. It therefore carried on from year to year without further checking.

Andrew MacKinlay: It was under a Conservative Government.

Lewis Moonie: I shall refrain from making any party political points on the subject, tempting though that might be.

Paul Keetch: I thank the Minister for giving me notice of his statement, and for coming to the House today. It was right that he should do so. Indeed, some might argue that the Government should have made a statement when this anomaly was first discovered. It appears that the Ministry of Defence is pursuing its normal procedure yet again in this case. First, it denies all knowledge; then it prevaricates and confuses for as long as possible; it admits to something only when the truth is insurmountable; and it compensates only when it is threatened by legal action or when the press finds out.
	Why was the Army involved, but not the Navy or the RAF? That is an interesting point for further discussion. The Minister said that 103 cases have so far come to light and that his estimate for compensation is 30 million. How does he calculate that figure if we do not yet know the full number of cases? How many widows and orphans may be affected by the error?
	Major Perry suggested that the MOD records are horrific. If so, why has there not been more of a campaign to encourage take-up? I have enormous respect for the Royal British Legion and the War Widows Association, but we need more national publicity and a proper take-up campaign. Or are the MOD and its civil servants more protective of Treasury coffers than concerned about giving what is due to those who have served the nation so well?
	We should congratulate Major Perry on his great persistence and tenacity, but this is not an isolated example. This is the Government who told me that they would not give compensation to the girlfriend of an SAS trooper but then offered her 100,000 when she threatened to sue. This is the Government who paid out 60 million to 5,000 service women who were found by an employment tribunal to have been wrongly dismissed just because they were pregnant.
	I welcome the fact that the Minister is now responsible for veterans affairs, but surely we need a proper debate in the House on our veterans because we are consistently letting them down. This country owes a great debt to those who have served it so well. It is the responsibility of this Government to pay that debt in full.

Lewis Moonie: With regard to denial or prevarication, I can say that a mistake was identified as a result of Major Perry's persistence, and action was immediately instituted to try to remedy the situation. That is not something that can be done overnight. We employed four extra members of staff and a great deal of the time of others to ensure that we could go through all the records involved. That has been a very careful process, and we have made no attempt to hide it.
	As I said, we gave an answer to the House in 1999 detailing our progress on the matter. We contacted veterans organisations, which, in the absence of any central register of veteranssomething that I hope to remedy in futureare the appropriate bodies to deal with the matter. The War Widows Association contacts more than 50,000 widows in its newsletter, and the Royal British Legion contacts more than 600,000 veterans. Frankly, I can think of few better ways of contacting veterans than through those organisations.
	However, in light of further consideration of the matter and some doubts in my mind as to whether there are more cases to be identified, I have decided to take further action, which will probably take the form of a national advertisement asking people to contact us. It will of course have to be phrased very carefully because the error affects only a minority of pensioners, and the last thing I want is to raise the expectations of the other 95 per cent. that they might be entitled to compensationthey will not.

Doug Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. He will know that when a citizen falls foul of the Inland Revenue, its usual practice is to get the money back plus interest. The MOD has fallen foul of long-standing Army personnel, so will it pay the sums due plus interest?

Lewis Moonie: The situation is that the Inland Revenue, as the responsible body, will repay all the money that was taken, in error, in taxation. In addition, a sum may be paid in compensation. That is governed by legislation, and it is a matter for the Inland Revenue, not the MOD, so I cannot comment any further.

John Greenway: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. My constituent Mr. Perkins has asked me personally to thank the Minister for the interest that he has shown in this matter. However, I do not think that he will be particularly pleased by the clarification of his own case which the Minister gave at the Dispatch Box. The Minister appears to be saying that despite Mr. Perkins's successful appeal, the MOD is still not satisfied that he was invalided out of the Army in 1959. Mr. Perkins is convinced that he was, and I do not see how the appeal could have been upheld if that were not the case.
	Is not the tragedy of this whole affair that people such as Mr. Perkins, who are not of great means, have for forty-two and a half years lived on less than they were entitled to from the state? I honestly implore the Minister to send some money to Mr. Perkins as quickly as he can, and to make sure that all those who are entitled to this refund get their money while they still have an opportunity to improve their quality of life.

Lewis Moonie: I certainly agree that the money should be paid as expeditiously as possible and we have managed that in the vast majority of cases. Mr. Perkins' case is complicated and, on grounds of brevity, I stopped reading my carefully prepared brief as I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman might ask a question. There are a couple of very complicated issues to look into and I am taking a personal interest in the case. I shall ensure that it is resolved as quickly as possible.

Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that my hon. Friend has taken a decision, against the MOD chiefs and all the rest of them, that Tom King, Jonathan Aitken, Malcolm Rifkind and all those other Tory Defence Ministers failed to take? I like listening to my hon. Friend when he makes a statement at the Dispatch Box, putting right what has been wrong for many, many years. I well recall his statement on putting it right for those who were prisoners of the Japanese in the war10,000 apiece. Rather than being curmudgeonly and nitpicking like the Liberals and the Tories, let me say that Labour Members are glad when he stands up to make a statement and puts right the wrongs of all those Tory Ministers.

Lewis Moonie: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. The important thing is that a mistake has been identified and substantially rectified. We must ensure that we find the rest of the cases involved and that the mistake is not repeated.

Crispin Blunt: I thank the Minister for his statement and congratulate him on ensuring that the money is coming out of the Treasury, not the defence budget. I am grateful to him for putting this injustice right. Like generations of service pensioners, he is aware that officials who run pensions have been assiduous in defending the defence budget and the Treasury interest when dealing with pensioners over the decades and that there is a glaring injustice that should be addressed.
	Some pensioners retired at a time of high inflation and members of my family, including my father, were affected by that. In particular, those who retired in the 1970s are in an absurd position. For example, a major who retired in 1975 having given only 33 years service is on a pension of several thousand pounds a year more than a major who gave longer service to Queen and country and retired in 1977. Will the Minister undertake to consider that injustice with an open mind and to discuss the issue openly with the Royal British Legion?

Lewis Moonie: I have discussed the matter with the Royal British Legion and the Forces Pension Society and I have no doubt that I shall continue to do so. The policy of successive Governments has been very clear: it is recognised that unfortunate cases have arisen from the pensions trough of the 1970s, but that applies to anyone who retired on a public service pension at that time, not just the armed forces. Successive Governments have also recognised that to put it right now is not possible. No change has been made in that policy by this Administration.
	On pensions in general, one reason for establishing a Minister for veterans affairs was to consider how we relate to our pensioners and, to use the modern word, to try to be more user-friendly. We want to make it easier for them to contact us, make them feel that they have someone to listen to them and see that injustices are remedied where possible.

Glenda Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for the speed with which he has come to the Chamber to deliver the statement, for his manner and for the apology that he offered to the veteransin marked contrast to the bizarre ramblings of the Conservative spokesperson. I also thank my hon. Friend for his warm tribute to members of the War Widows Association for the help with which they furnished his Department.
	Surely every hon. Member of Parliament can provide help to their constituents, so I have essentially two questions. First, is it possible for the Ministry of Defence to furnish Members with documentation and information which dependants of a deceased veteran may need to make their claims? Secondly, will the moneys be paid in a lump sum; will they be paid over a period of time; and will they remain tax free, even if those who now take the money that this country has owed to them are taxpayers?

Lewis Moonie: Points of tax law are always difficult for a humble Defence Minister to deal with, but I shall do my best.
	My hon. Friend's first point was excellent. Clearly, right hon. and hon. Members will be approached by constituents, and I shall attempt in the very near future to give them information which will allow them to identify with constituents who go to their offices or advice surgeries exactly whether they are likely to be entitled to a refund, or at least whether one would be worth pursuing.
	On my hon. Friend's last point, the moneys themselves would not be liable to taxation. After all, they were withdrawn as taxation in the first place. The only reason why I cannot give her a 100 per cent. answer is that I am not sure what happens when moneys are added to an estate that is already liable to death duties. Frankly, I do not know whether, in those circumstances, the moneys would be liable to taxation, but I shall write to my hon. Friend on that.

David Burnside: May I welcome the Minister's statement and his apologies to those who have lost out badly? I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), that this subject is once again at the bottom of the agenda. The subjects of widows, pensioners and war widows come up now and again as a result of pressure, but they are way down at the bottom of the agenda, and I support the call for a full debate on this subject.
	May I ask the Minister two questions, one of which relates to my part of the world? First, if there are any eligible serving members among those who served full time in the Ulster Defence Regiment in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, will they receive the compensation as full members of a British Army regiment?
	Secondly, will the Minister comment on Major Perry, who deserves a great deal of praise from this House? According to an article in The Daily Telegraph todaythis is not on the original mistakeMajor Perry blames this cover-up on
	sloppy thinking and a culture within the MOD that honour goes out of the window if money can be saved and the personal careers of civil servants can be protected.
	I would not question the general role of the civil service within the MOD or any Department, but it would appear that there has been a recent cover-up. Can the Minister assure the House that the cover-up and delays on this subject will be investigated and that, if heads have to roll, they will?

Lewis Moonie: With regard to the UDR, like any other serving regiment they would be liable to repayment if such cases arose. If the hon. Gentleman discovers any, I shall be happy if he will bring them to our attention. I strongly rebut any question of a cover-up in the Ministry of Defence. We started to act as soon as we became aware that our previous behaviour, based on what we thought was accurate advice, was wrong. Until recently, the pension society concerned had quite a lot of independence in carrying out its duties and was perhaps not subjected to close enough scrutiny.
	As the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) said, only one of our three pension societies made this mistakethe other two did not. It beggars belief that a period of 50 years could have elapsed with one of our pensions organisations doing one thing and two doing another. Given that retired officers meet and discuss matters regularly, it also beggars belief that at some stage somebody did not discover that one of them was paying tax on his pension while another was not. Had that happened, this matter would have been brought to public notice much earlier.
	I reiterate that Ministers heard about this matter in 1998. The position was clarified, and organisations outside were contacted and wrote to their members. As progress was being made, we replied to a question in the House on the subject, and we have replied to further questions since. There has been no attempt to cover this up; nor have I, through my officials, been able to establish any evidence in the distant past of an attempt to cover it up.
	I believeI shall have another look at the matter to make sure, although it will be difficult to go back 50 yearsthat an honest mistake was made in one of our societies in the 1950s. It was then institutionalised and brought into every action after that. It was only through the persistence of Major Perry, whom I again congratulate, that we got to the bottom of it.

Mike O'Brien: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement and the way in which he made it. Is it not important that these payments be made quickly, using a simple, straightforward formula? Some of these pensioners will have been in receipt of benefits at various stages. Can my hon. Friend assure us that there will not have to be an excruciatingly complex analysis of relative incomes and of the impact on benefits of the payments that these pensioners have been denied, which would result in a long delay? We may end up with the Benefits Agency being able to claim money from these pensioners.

Lewis Moonie: I think that these pensions are usually discounted when benefit entitlement is considered. I am not sure how much is discounted, or what the overall position would be, but I should be happy to establish that for my hon. Friend, and to set his mind at rest by writing to him on the subject.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am obliged to the Minister for the copy of the statement, although the notice was rather short. The hon. Gentleman warmly praised Major John Perry for his tenacity and efforts, and I am sure that it is largely due to Major Perry's campaign that this result has been achieved.
	If compensation is to be paid, it will have at least to equal the amount plus the interest that would have been earned on deposit account, otherwise it is no compensation at all. I sincerely believe that the Minister will do his best in that regard. Will he consider that issue, and ensure that compensation really does mean compensation?

Lewis Moonie: I shall do my best, but compensation is paid according to a fixed formula. That is covered by statute, and I honestly do not believe that there is anything I can do to vary that. The formula is based on the amount of money taken in error plus an element of compensation to take account of the fact that the money could have been used. Let us face it, no compensation will make up for the fact that many of these pensioners have died without enjoying the benefits of the money to which they were entitled.

Eric Martlew: I also welcome the Minister's statement. It is a pity that it is 50 years too late, but that is not our fault. On the practical side, I was worried that at the end of his statement my hon. Friend said that people should write to an office in Glasgow. In reality, many of them will contact their Members of Parliament. The procedures that were put in place to compensate prisoners of war worked very well. I suggest to the Minister that we are given a parliamentary number that people can ring, so that we can put cases into the system. I do not want to be the arbiter of people's entitlement. If we do not get this procedure right, we will get more complaints about further delay.

Lewis Moonie: I fully accept my hon. Friend's point. Today, I am giving a holding answer so that anyone with immediate concerns can write to the appropriate address. People have also been phoning our hotline at the War Pensions Agency. Assuming that that continues, we shall ensure that it is capable of dealing with complaints. I shall also ensure that suitable advertisements are placed, and that hotlines are widely publicised, so that as many people as possible can take advantage of them.

Patrick Mercer: I thank the Minister for the grace and generosity of his apology. Will he assure those members of the 3 Military Intelligence Battalion who have been called up that their pension rights, the pension rights of any widows that may result from their being called up, and their tax position are properly explained to them?

Lewis Moonie: We have improved the system of call-out of volunteers and compulsory call-out of personnelboth are involved in that battalion. We have carefully considered the call-up of members of the Territorial Army and other reserve forces. The information given is much more carefully explained to them now than it was in the past. I shall certainly ensure that they are in no doubt about their rights. In their entirety and probably throughout this deployment, they will be based in this country, so I hope that their lives will not be put at risk. There is a chance that some of them will be sent to Afghanistan, but it is only a chance.

David Heath: I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's resolution of one of the many injustices and anomalies in the service pensions system, but he will have the support of Members in all parts of the House if, as Minister responsible for veterans, he now addresses other service pensions issues so that we properly recognise the debt we owe to our ex-service men. In particular, will he institute an independent actuarial review of the consequences of reduced pension payments for those who served between 1949 and 1975?

Lewis Moonie: Given the complexity of the hon. Gentleman's question, and the fact that it is tangential to my statement, I shall have to write to him.

Julian Lewis: Does the Minister agree with the thrust of what was said by the hon. Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Hereford (Mr. Keetch)? For many years, has there not been a culture of resistance in the Ministry of Defence to questions in regard to which matters concerning pension rights become controversial? Will the Minister consider looking again at some of the outstanding issues in relation to which that controversy persists?
	I am thinking particularly of a case advanced by the Forces Pension Society involving serving officers who marry after their term of service has ended, usually because of the nature of their careers, and then find that their widowsshould their wives outlive them, as will probably be the casewill be entitled to nothing from the pension contributions that they have made. Might not Ministers do better to be a little more sceptical about some of the advice that they receive from their MOD officials on such matters?

Lewis Moonie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we consider all such issues carefully when they are raised. Obviously we do not spend all our time considering them, or we would not be able to do our other jobs; but we review them periodically to see whether anything can be done.
	Contrary to belief, when the MOD is clearly liable it makes no bones about paying compensation. As for the specific issue mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, it is a while since I considered it. I will have another look at it.

Hugh Robertson: I thank the Minister for his statement and, indeed, for his apology. It is clearly important for what is wrong to be put right as quickly as possible, especially as I suspect that those still affected are likely to be the most elderly and vulnerable pension holders. Will the Minister therefore give two guarantees? First, will he ensure that all the necessary resources are put at his disposal in order to solve the problem? For instance, will he be able to contact all the regimental associations, which often hold much better records than the MOD? Secondly, will he undertake to write to the Treasury himself to ensure that the formula that is applied is not the one normally used when tax is being back-paid, and that a realistic interest payment is made to reflect the period during which people have lost money?

Lewis Moonie: I agree that the net should be spread as widely as possible, and I think that surviving widows probably are the most vulnerable group. I recently had discussions with representatives of pensioners, who told me that many women of that generation do not know much about the system according to which they are paid; they relied on their husbands when they were alive, and assumed that what was done was correct. We will do all that we can to encourage and help such women to come forward and claim what is due to them.
	As for Treasury rules on compensation, I am prepared to consider making representations, but have no great confidence in their ultimate success.

John Baron: While praising the Minister for coming to the House and for making the apology in the manner in which he did, may I respectfully point out that it appears that the MOD has dragged its feet on this issue, as, perhaps, with other issues? Although I accept that there has not been a cover-up, will the Minister instigate an inquiry to ensure that such matters are dealt with properly in future by the MOD, and that loss and suffering are minimised for those who are very vulnerable with regard to this aspect of pensions?

Lewis Moonie: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I shall certainly be looking at the matter to ensure that any mistakes are not repeated.

Points of Order

Liam Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may be aware that yesterday the BBC Today programme put into the public domain a letter from the chief executive of the south east region of the NHS indicating that the NHS would overspend in that region by some 60 million this year. That figure was accepted on the programme by the Secretary of State.
	In a reply dated 14 January to a parliamentary question, the Minister indicated a projected overspend of 7.5 million, an almost tenfold difference. Both the letter and the reply are dated 14 January. Given that the Minister must by now know that there is a serious difference in the answer given to Parliament and the answer given to the region and to the public, has there been any indication from the Minister of any attempt to come to the House to explain the discrepancy between the two?

David Lidington: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was the hon. Member who tabled the question that received the answer to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has referred. Can you investigate the discrepancies, which clearly led to incorrect information being given to me? That has added insult to injury. It took the Department of Health some six weeks to give me any sort of reply to a question that I had tabled back in November, and I have discovered that my own health authority, Buckinghamshire, was predicting a deficit on publicly available material in November and December last year that was significantly larger than the deficit for Buckinghamshire that the Minister gave me in the answer received on 14 January this year.
	It seems that I had to wait a very long time for an answer for my constituents and received inaccurate information from the Department. I hope that Members can get a better service in future.

Mr. Speaker: I am governed by the rules of the House, and I am not responsible for the content of answers. The hon. Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) can seek further clarification through parliamentary questions, by correspondence or indeed by asking for a meeting with the Minister, but I repeat that it is not a matter for me.

Adam Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On two occasions yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health made comments that were grossly insulting to hon. Members from Wales and indeed to the people of Wales. Will you take the opportunity to point out to the Secretary of State that he has responsibility in a range of areas for issues covering Wales, not least one of the issues about which he was asked yesterday? Will you also point out that comments such as
	I do not do Wales . . . However, I occasionally like to do people from Wales[Official Report, 22 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 770.]
	are extremely unbefitting of a Cabinet Minister? Re-reading them, I was trying to work out exactly what
	to do people from Wales
	meant. Is it sexual innuendo, or are we being invited to step outside the Chamber? It should be pointed out to the Secretary of State that such comments are way below the standard that we expect from Cabinet Ministers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman mentioned responsibility. I am not responsible for the Secretary of State's statements. The Secretary of State is.

Identity Card

Nick Palmer: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for an identity card for British residents; and for connected purposes.
	We are all aware of the gruesome fate that awaits most ten-minute rule Bills. This Bill is intended as a pilot for any potential future Government legislation.
	I am seeking to promote a serious debate that goes beyond the relatively superficial matters covered in some previous discussions. However, I pay tribute to the serious discussion that has taken place. For instance, reports from the Select Committee on Home Affairs some years ago, and from the Data Protection Commissioner, are notable in that respect. The matter was also given serious consideration in a draft report from the Information Commissioner, which I have seen as a result of my membership of her informal advisory group.
	I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) will put the case against the Bill. That will allow us to have a full debate. With a little luck, we may also have the opportunity to discover the view of the House.
	Why is the Bill needed? The main objectives are to reduce low-level crime and disorder, to help prevent inappropriate purchaseof alcohol or fireworks, for instanceand to discourage all fraud based on impersonation. Such fraud includes benefit fraud and electoral fraud.
	The Bill contains four main provisions. First, it provides that all residents should be issued with a smart ID card. It would be compulsory to own such a card, but not to carry it at all times. Similar provisions apply to driving licences. So far, I have not encountered anyone who thought that the requirement that drivers own a driving licence was a great imposition. On a similar principle, it should be possible for residents of Britain to be able to identify themselves if necessary.
	Secondly, the Bill would authorise the police to request identification, but only if a person were considered to be behaving suspiciously, or had entered an area temporarily or permanently designated as high-security. An example of such an area would be that immediately surrounding a military base.
	The Bill would mean that an ID card would be sufficient to satisfy such a request. Therefore, any British resident carrying an ID card would be able to satisfy police inquiries by producing it. If the ID card were not available, the police would be allowed to request alternative identification. If they could not satisfy themselves about a person's identity, officers could, if necessary, accompany that person to his home and look at the card there. In addition, another person with an ID card or a driver's licence could be asked for confirmation of a person's identity, or some other means of identification might be available.
	The key point is that the Bill would give police the power to ask for identification that they lack at present. The other day, a police officer in my constituency told me that he often stops people who he believes to be joy riding. They give him a name and address and say, Sorry, officer, we haven't got our driving licence with us. The officer is forced to take at face value the name and address that he is given. When the people go off, the officer has no way to tell whether the name and address that he has been given are false.
	Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that it would be impossible for you to be caught loitering in Beeston high street at 2 am examining shop fronts, but it is possible that I could be there. If I were, a policeman might ask what I was doing and who I was. At present, I could give some explanation and any name or address without being required to offer proof. At the end of such a conversation, I could commit a crime when the policeman moved on, secure in the knowledge that I had not been personally identified.
	The police should be required to log all such requests. That would act as a deterrent. People who have been identified by the police, and know that the police have logged that identification, are less likely to commit a crime in the same vicinity soon afterwards. It would also be a security measure. Most hon. Members will recall the controversy over the sus law as it applied in Brixton. Perfectly law-abiding people used to be stopped several times a week, simply because they lived in Brixton and were black. We must ensure that such behaviour does not happen again. The Bill foresees an independent audit each year of the number of requests made by each police force, to discover whether any police force is using the power much more than others, and to give those conducting the audit the power to investigate why that should be the case, to ensure that only genuinely suspicious behaviour results in requests for identification.
	All local authorities would be provided with a networked card printer, which would replace a lost or stolen card and register with the network that all previous versions of the card for that person were invalid or stolen, so that attempts to misuse identification would meet swift retribution. That provision is necessary. In Sweden, there have been many cases of identity being stolen, with fairly drastic consequences, so it is important that if one's card is stolen there is a local office where one can immediately obtain a replacement and ensure that all previous versions of that card are recognised as invalid.
	Finally, I propose that the smart card have sufficient capacitytechnically, that is no problem nowto cover a wide range of possible additional services for the holder. I envisage in the long run incorporating the driving licence, the asylum seeker card that is now being introduced, the card that many people have proposed for benefits recipients, and identification for other Government and local government services. It is important that we make it clear that it is not a card that we give to asylum seekers and benefits recipients only, in some way stamping them as requiring special supervision, but a card that each of us has, to register which services we are receiving from Government and local government.
	In addition, the Bill foresees the possibility of other organisations and companieslocal transport bodies, financial institutions or retailersrenting space on the card's memory for voluntary use by their customers. That would greatly enhance the usefulness of the card to the user and it would provide a secure and well supported ID system for vendors and help fully recover the cost of the scheme.
	I have tried to strike a balance between crime reduction, usefulness to residents, protection against misuse and elimination of cost to the Exchequer. I recognise that a great deal more debate will be needed before any such Bill sees the light of day, but I ask the House's leave to introduce the Bill so that that debate may proceed.

Roger Casale: My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) has made a good case and I congratulate him on securing the debate.
	Although I oppose the Bill, I do not oppose in principle the idea of introducing identity cards. Nor do I believe that the operation of a system of identity cards would present insurmountable practical difficulties or result in the generation of excessive costs, although costs arguments have been a constant feature of debate on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) quoted a figure of 1.8 billion as the cost of introducing the scheme, which he claims, on the basis of Home Office figures, would be equivalent to putting several thousand police officers on the street. We must be aware of those arguments about cost, but that is not the basis on which I seek to oppose the Bill.
	Identity cards do work well in many European countries. There are many practical benefits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, as well as imaginative ways of helping to recover the costs. I oppose the Bill because I do not believe that it would be right to try to introduce a system of identity cards in Britain at the present time. I believe that we need a much more robust and inclusive concept of citizenship before we would introduce identity cards. We must work first to change the rather unbalanced relationship that still exists between the British citizen and the British state.
	The positive case for identity cards rests on the idea that they will strengthen the rights of the citizen, but in the title of his Bill, my hon. Friend refers to residents rather than citizens. Many of his arguments about the practical benefits focus on the benefits that would accrue to the holder of an identity card as a consumer. However, identity cards would be issued to individuals by virtue of their status not as consumers or residents, but as citizens. We cannot raise the issue of whether to have identity cards without at the same time raising the question of who is to qualify as a British citizen and exactly what those qualifications mean.
	We must recognise that the introduction of identity cards, especially on a compulsory basis, as argued for by my hon. Friend, would fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state. There is no need to rehearseI do not have time to do sothe many objections that could be adduced on civil liberty grounds, not just in terms of costs, to the introduction of identity cards. Those objections include the effect that identity cards would have on the protection of civil and human rights, such as the rights to privacy, confidentiality and freedom from discrimination.
	At the heart of those objectionsindeed, the foundation on which they restis the notion of the state that, by its very existence, is antagonistic to the interests and freedoms of individuals; thus objectors view the identity card as one more instrument of state control. As Charter 88 has said, the entire concept of a national identity card system requires a level of trust and authority that is notably lacking in this country.
	I do not share that fundamental mistrust of the state. I believe that the state is fundamental to our basic rights and liberties and to their protection. However, we have a duty to ensure that we balance the control that the state exercises over us as citizens with the democratic control and accountability that we exercise, so far as possible, over the state through our elected representatives and through the House. The problem is that that broader notion of citizenship is not very deeply entrenched in Britain today. I submit that we still think of ourselves as subjects, rather than citizens, and as relatively weak as citizens, lacking in opportunities for redress in the face of the centralised and, at times, seemingly overbearing power of the British state.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has started to make the case that we should view identity cards as a kind of passport to citizenship that will make it easier for people to prove their identities and guarantee our entitlement as citizens to certain basic services. I welcome that approach, but there is little evidence from countries that have identity cards that they are effective, for example, in managing crime. Nevertheless, the argument that a citizenship or identity card would strengthen the position of the most vulnerable groups in our societythe argument that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seeks to makeis powerful and must be taken very seriously.
	Part of the problem with that argument is that many people believe that, in practice, it will cut both ways. Many of the most marginal groups may feel even more excluded, depending on the operation of the identity card system, especially if they fail to qualify for the card for any reason. Even if vulnerable groups qualified for such a card, it would be difficult perhaps for some of them to benefit if it were used to gain access to services, especially in the digital age.
	I return to the point that we need a far broader, more inclusive and rights-based approach to citizenship to underpin any suggestion of introducing an identity card. We must move strongly away from notions of citizenship based on nationality and family descent. As I have said, we need to challenge the notion that lies at the heart of the unwritten British constitutional system that we are first subjects and then citizens. We need to strengthen new concepts of citizenship from the bottom up, rather than trying to introduce a new relationship between the state and the citizen from the top down. I believe that only then will we achieve the kind of sea-change in the relationship between the citizen and the state without which the idea of a compulsory identity card for this country will never enjoy public confidence and support.
	There are signs that things are moving in the right direction. Through contact with other European countries, we have seen some of the practical benefits that accrue to citizens because of the operation of identity cards. The incorporation of the European convention on human rights in British law and the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are all steps in the right direction.
	There are also clear signs of a shift in our political culture. The stronger role of civil society organisations, the development even of notions of corporate citizenships and the idea of stakeholding all help to broaden the concept of citizenship and the bottom-up approach.
	Not least, the Government's programme of constitutional reform is moving the agenda forward on citizenship issues. The abolition of the hereditary principle as an entitlement to sit in Parliament and the Government's commitment to devolution and subsidiarity all help to make notions of active citizenshipand, in particular, popular sovereigntymore deeply entrenched. One sign that such a sea-change in the relationship between the citizen and state had come about would be if the request for identity cards came from citizens or civil society groups themselves. That would enable us to approach the issue in a bottom-up, rather than top-down, manner.
	If we are to have identity cards in the future, they should be just that. They should be a proof of identity and therefore of citizenship and entitlement. We should certainly not try to make the cards do the work that my hon. Friend would like them to do however convenient and attractive that might seem. In seeking to introduce the cards that he has in mind, he will find that he is in competition with Departments, which will find plenty of jobs for the cards to do. The Department of Health has already expressed an interest in using such cards for organ donors; the Home Office would like a smart card; and we will hear from the Department for Education and Skills that the cards should contain our CVs and examination results and perhaps from the Treasury that the card should be able to answer the five economic tests.
	If we are to have a system of identity cards at some point in the future, it must be clear that, as well as gaining something, we would be giving something up. We will be giving up the liberty that we currently enjoyalthough some might question its practical relevance in the modern worldto be able to move around Britain without documentary proof of our identity. However, if I had the time, that point might lead to a discussion of the important point about the effect that the introduction of identity cards might have on public confidence in the police and on the relationship between the public and the police.
	Traditionally, internal controls have been strengthened where external border controls have been weak. There is a much greater use of identity cards, for example, in the EU countries that have signed the Schengen agreement. We should not introduce identity cards in this country without examining our border controls. Citizens should have greater freedom of movement between Britain and other European countries in return for what would inevitably become tighter control over our freedom of movement within the UK.
	The time is not right for the introduction of the Bill. The public must not be coerced into accepting its provisions without there being the much more robust and broader notion of citizenship that I have described. I oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):
	The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 106.

Question accordingly negatived.

ADOPTION AND CHILDREN BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
	That, pursuant to the reports [15th and 17th January] of the Special Standing Committee, the Order of 29th October 2001 (Adoption and Children Bill (Programme)) shall be varied as follows:

Consideration and Third Reading

1.Paragraph 4(1) of the Order shall be omitted.
	2.(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two allotted days.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at Eight o'clock on the second of those days or, if that day is a Thursday, at Five o'clock on that day.
	(3) Proceedings on Third Reading (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
	(4) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.[Angela Smith.]
	Question agreed to.

EDUCATION BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
	That, pursuant to the report [17th January] from Standing Committee G, the Order of 4th December 2001 (Education Bill (Programme)) shall be varied as follows:

Consideration and Third Reading

1. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2.(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two allotted days.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the second of those days or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
	(3) Proceedings on Third Reading (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
	(4) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.[Angela Smith.]
	Question agreed to.

International Development Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	  
	Restriction on assistance to governments involved in gross violations of human rights

'(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare and lay before Parliament a list of those countries whose governments he considers to engage in or tolerate gross violations of human rights, as defined in subsections (2) and (3) below, and other countries may be added to (or deleted from) the list by resolution of the House of Commons.
	(2) In determining whether a country is in gross violation of human rights, as described in subsection (3) below, the Secretary of State shall give particular consideration to whether a foreign government
	(a) has engaged in gross violations of the right to freedom of religion; or
	(b) has failed to undertake serious and sustained efforts to combat gross violations of the right to freedom of religion, when such efforts could have been reasonably undertaken; or
	(c) has engaged in persecution of individuals or groups on the basis of their ethnic origin or membership of a particular ethnic group.
	(3) In this section gross violations of human rights includes a consistent pattern of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction or clandestine detention of those powers, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons.
	(4) No assistance shall be provided under Part I of this Act to the government of any country for the time being included in the list in existence under subsection (1) (provided that this section does not prohibit or restrict the provision of medicine, medical equipment or supplies, food, or other humanitarian assistance).'.[Bob Spink.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Bob Spink: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	Britain has a strong and honourable tradition and record on aid and development. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill, which the Opposition welcome. We believe in strengthening our international aid framework to make it more effective and more relevant and appropriate to changing world situations. We think that the Bill is right, but we also think that it can be improved. That is why I am speaking to the new clause, which would link the giving of British aid with the promotion of long-term, sustainable human rights improvements and, thereby, the promotion of long-term, sustainable development. I should make it immediately clear that the new clause does not seek to restrict direct humanitarian aid. I propose that food, medical and disaster aid should be exempt from the controls that it would introduce.
	I know that the Secretary of State for International Development is currently in Tokyo, but none the less, I should like to say that I have long admired her. She has great energy and commitment, especially in this area, and a very big heart. I hope that she will take on board the ideas that I am floating in the new clause and be guided by them in future policy development. As the general thrust of my arguments is soundsome might say that they are merely simple common senseI have no doubt that she will listen and respond positively. Even if she cannot do so today, she may do so in developing her policy in future.
	The House knows well the superb work of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on human rights and the promotion of religious freedom around the world. His sound influence will be felt in the new clause, for which he must take all the credit. He is currently unavoidably detained in Committee; otherwise, he would be here to speak to the new clause. None the less, both he and I wholeheartedly support the promotion of international development world wide and would welcome an increase in the amount of UK Government aid that is given to developing nations. However, decisions on whether such aid should be given, how much is allocated and where it is targeted should take into serious consideration the human rights records of the receiving nations. In many cases, aid can and should be used as leverage to pressure Governments into strengthening civil society and improving their human rights records.
	Since the 20th century, human rights have become a universal language enshrined in international law, including the universal declaration of human rights, the Geneva conventions and the international covenants on civil and political rights. There is a strong correlation between a state's respect for human rights and its development. That underpins the thesis that I am advancing.
	It is no coincidence that most economically developed nations tend to have generally good human rights records, a strong civil society and a democratic Government. Strengthening civil society and significantly improving a state's human rights record are major contributions to the long-term development of any nation. I therefore urge the Government not to give aid to states that engage in or tolerate gross violations of human rights. As I explained earlier, humanitarian assistance such as providing medicine and food is excepted.

Hugh Bayley: Like the hon. Gentleman, I want to do whatever is possible to promote human rights. It would be difficult to think of a Government with a poorer human rights record than the Taliban when they governed Afghanistan, yet the United Nations argued for massive aid to that country for humanitarian purposes. Much of it required Government support. On 6 September, the UN argued for $560 million of aid. Would not the new clause put such aid at risk?

Bob Spink: It would put pressure on the new Government in Afghanistan to improve and strengthen civil society and human rights. It would apply positive pressure to try to achieve a freer, more democratic and sounder world.

Hugh Bayley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Like him, I hopeand have confidencethat the new Administration in Afghanistan will improve human rights. It is an important, positive sign that the Government includes two women. However, my question related to the Taliban. Would he have opposed giving aid to Afghanistan before 11 September, when the Taliban were in power?

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question. We are no longer in that position. If the new clause had formed part of Government policy many years ago, I presume that it would have been used as positive pressure to extract a better record from Governments who abuse human rights. We can apply pressure by many means, for example, diplomacy or simply talking and asking for change. We can also apply economic pressure to improve human rights. The new clause would create a link between human rights and economic pressure.

Norman Lamb: I acknowledge the importance of putting pressure on countries to improve human rights. However, the new clause goes further. Once a country is listed as a state where gross violations of human rights occur, it can receive no development assistance. The Taliban would have been on the list because they were probably the worst Government in the world for violating human rights. The new clause would have prevented any aid to Afghanistan. Would the hon. Gentleman have wanted to achieve that?

Bob Spink: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will realise that I excluded purely humanitarian aid from the remit of the new clause. Medicine, food and disaster aid is therefore exempt. The new clause covers budget support and development aid. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my constituents who do not want British money to support despotic regimes. We do not collect taxes to do that, and our constituents do not pay taxes for that.

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Spink: Let me make a little progress. The hon. Gentleman may catch my eye later.
	Perhaps I can define the gross violation of human rights that the new clause tries to control. It includes
	violations of the right to freedom of religion
	and the
	persecution of individuals or groups on the basis of their ethnic origin or membership of a particular ethnic group.
	The new clause is about conditional, not tied aid. The basic thesis of new clause 1 is linking human rights to aid. It is an idea for the future. The Government's view on the future potential for this linkage would be appreciated, whatever their view on the new clause at this late stage of the Bill's progress.
	According to Library research paper 01/85, published on 1 November 2001, clause 1 states that the Secretary of State may provide development aid if she is satisfied that this is likely to contribute to a reduction of poverty. The paper states:
	Development assistance is defined as assistance provided for the purpose of:
	Furthering sustainable development in one or more countries outside the UK or;
	Improving the welfare of the population of one or more such countries.
	For the purpose of clause 1, sustainable development is defined as
	any development that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, prudent having regard to the likelihood of its generating lasting benefits for the population of the country or countries in relation to which it is provided.
	I argue that, unless aid is linked to promoting good, sustainable human rightsas new clause 1 proposesit will not satisfy the test of whether it is likely to generate lasting benefits for the population of a country. As hon. Members have already tried to argue, a short-term case can be made for giving aid at any given time, but perhaps they will see that my proposal is a good idea for the longer term, when they look back and see how the world is developing.

Jim Knight: In Belarus, the Government under Lukashenko is one that most of us would want to put on a list, if one were to be manufactured according to the provisions of the hon. Gentleman's new clause. However, I have been part of an initiative involving a partnership between two communitiesone in this country and one in Belarusseeking to resolve a particular problem in relation to AIDS and HIV, which has also extended into other areas of civil society. In the city of Svetlogorsk, this has achieved an extension of the participation in government by a much larger number of people. If such activity is repeated across a country, it can turn that country around and start to move the political climate towards one that might overthrow a President such as Lukashenko and replace the system with a more democratic one. I would not want that sort of effort to be put at risk by blacklisting any development assistance being given to projects such as these.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is obviously a great expert on Belarus and on that kind of aid. I do not think that my new clause would put such aid at risk, because it would exclude humanitarian and medical aid. My proposal would bring forward the spreading of democracy and good human rights practices in countries such as Belarus.
	I shall give an example of my own. The millions of pounds in aid that the British Government give to Vietnam should be conditional on the Vietnamese Government making significant progress with their human rights record. How else are we to get change? That must include Vietnam ending its persecution of Christians and the adherents of other religions, and stopping the continuing atrocities against the Montagnard people of the central highlands.
	Giving aid to Governments who engage in or tolerate gross human rights violationsas Britain currently doesonly supports such despotic regimes, and is more likely to hinder than to help long-term development. Making aid conditional can promote human rights. It can also give more purpose and long-term impact to our aid programmes and make them more focused, and make development sustainable, which is one of the key qualifying tests that the Government set out for their aid programme. This could be a sound way to secure change in Zimbabwe, to give another example.

Glenda Jackson: Does the hon. Gentleman's entirely laudable commitment to human rights represent a policy shift within his party? I well remember, when the Conservatives were last in government, that it was their policy to encourage trade with Burma, which has one of the worst human rights records in the world. I can also remember the time when Baroness Thatcher, as she is now, dubbed sanctions against the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa minimal in their effect. I certainly do not recall any pronouncements by the then Conservative Government against the gross infringement of human rights in Chile, either while there was a fascist regime in power or even afterwards. Surely, the issue here is that

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should make her point briefly.

Glenda Jackson: All the new clause would do is punish those who have already suffered the denial of their human rights.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind words in introducing her question. I know how seriously she takes these matters, and the House always listens when she speaks on these subjects, but I think that on this occasion she is wrong. The new clause would allow humanitarian aid to be made available and it would put pressure on regimes that are doing things wrong to plan and make improvements and to move towards democracy. In the longer run, it would achieve what she most wantsa safer world in which there is more care for people's freedoms.
	The hon. Lady made some sound points about the Conservatives' record, but we are now opening our ears to what the people have to say. Our constituents do not want us to give taxpayers' money to despotic regimes that flout human rights; they want us to use that money on development aid, as we should, and they want to see us do so with a sense of purpose in order to develop good practice around the world.

Tony Cunningham: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), I think that the hon. Gentleman's aims appear to be laudable and I understand why he wants to link human rights, good governance and aid. However, I share the concerns that my hon. Friend expressed. It is the poorest people in the poorest countries of the world who are suffering under despotic regimes, and they are the people whom we should be helping.
	The new clause refers only to humanitarian aid, but two major issues are health and education, and money for those comes from a long-term budget rather than a humanitarian aid budget. The new clause would not allow us to spend money to improve health and education through, for example, non-governmental organisations in the civil society that we are trying to help and protect, instead of giving aid to Governments. The danger of the new clause, however laudable it might seem, is that it will lead to people who are suffering now suffering even more.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that interventions are meant to be brief.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He made some sound points. It seems from all the interventions so far that there is agreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House that my intentions in tabling new clause 1 are laudable and right in principle, but the detail may require more discussion and development. That is the point of the proceedings, and I am delighted that we are having the debate. We can discuss the definition of humanitarian aid, how much medical assistance and food it should include, whether education comes into it and whether the new clause should simply exclude budget support. Those are points worth debating.
	I shall give an example of a purposeful use of aid so that the House will understand my aims. The United States uses legislation and the suspension of overseas aid as a means of promoting human rights abroad. We can learn from its International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which created a number of tools to promote religious freedom as a foreign policy goal and to combat religious persecution in other countries.
	The law identifies a wide range of diplomatic and economic tools that the President may apply to those countries that engage in systematic and on-going violations of human rights and religious liberty. The action that the President may take against such violations of religious freedom includes suspending US Government aid to offending states. That constitutes US Government recognition of the principle that aid should not simply be handed out to overseas Governments without their human rights records being seriously considered.
	The US Act is an example of creative and common- sense use of legislation, including the leverage that may be applied through overseas aid to put significant pressure on states with poor human rights records. The mere existence of the Act and the range of sanctions that may be applied against state violators of human rights puts significant, tangible pressure on them to improve their human rights records. In the longer run, it will achieve better, more sustainable development, which is what we should all seek.
	We in Britain should adopt a similar approach to promoting religious freedom and other human rights across the world. The new clause would deliver smart sanctionsencouragement for and pressure on countries to open up their borders, which is a step in the right direction that Conservative Members have promoted for many years. Many Governments who grossly violate religious freedoms and other human rights are unlikely to listen to persuasion and mere expressions of concern alone, notwithstanding the extraordinary persuasiveness of the Secretary of State, who is in Tokyo.
	We should call on offending Governments to stop allowing human rights abuses, and non-humanitarian assistance to those countries, such as the budgetary support that the UK gives the Pakistani Government, should be used as leverage for them to improve their human rights records as soon as possible. That could have been done with Pakistan.
	The new clause would allow the Government to use economic as well as diplomatic levers on Pakistan, for example, to persuade it to move from its system of governmenta military dictatorshiptowards democracy and a stronger civil society, which I know the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) wants to promote.

Tony Cunningham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am not sure that the US is a good example to use in an overseas aid debate. Of the 22 most developed countries, it is bottom of the league as it gives only 0.1 per cent. of gross domestic product to development and it has not signed all sorts of UN treaties, including the land mines treaty, which most developed and many underdeveloped countries have signed.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman chooses one statistic, but in straight cash terms the United States comes out top of the pile. We are debating what our taxpayers give to the developing world, what long-term effect that money will have, whether we can change the world and whether, in 25 years, we shall be able to say, That was a good new clause. We should have taken it on board earlier. I hope that the Government are listening to what I am saying.
	Experience shows that Governments are often unwilling to improve their human rights conduct unless failure to do so inflicts a significant cost on them, especially if it can be measured in tangible economic terms. In practice, that principle is rarely applied. For example, the Indonesian Government have received significant British aid in the past year despite the fact that they totally failed to prevent an extremist Islamic group, Laskar Jihad, from sending 8,000 fighters to the Molucca islands to wage a jihada so-called holy waragainst Christians. Those Islamic terrorists were not from the Moluccas and they included Afghans and Pakistanis, yet the Indonesian Government have made little or no attempt to remove them.
	Several weeks before travelling to the Moluccas, Laskar Jihad publicly announced that it would wage a jihad against the Molucca Christians, yet the Indonesian Government did absolutely nothing to prevent that. On 25 October 2001, the Prime Minister, no less, wrote to President Megawati about this extremist group, but the British aid continued. So did the human rights abuses, proving that words alone, even from such a person as the Prime Minister, are just not enough. They are not the answer and we need economic pressure to go with them.
	Laskar Jihad is well armed, having received many weapons such as mortars and automatics from the Indonesian military. Moreover, Indonesian Government soldiers have joined its attacks on Christians. On 13 December, the BBC reported that authorities in Indonesia had confirmed that al-Qaeda fighters have been fighting in Sulawesi to support Laskar Jihad's war against the Christians there. The Indonesian Government's indulgence of Laskar Jihad has enabled it, if not encouraged it, to widen its area of operations and instigate horrific and brutal violence against Christians, not just in the Molucca islands, but in central Sulawesi.
	There are about 28,000 internally displaced Christians in Tentena in central Sulawesi. Since June, Islamic fighters have cleared Christians from the town of Poso and the surrounding areas. Those Christians were forced to take refuge from the violence in Tentena. They are short of food, medicines and shelter and their situation is truly dire. If Laskar Jihad succeeds in Tentena, another mass slaughter of Christians in the region is likely.
	This is not simply an issue of religious liberty. It involves people being displaced, brutalised, tortured and murdered because of their religious beliefs. That is a form of ethnic cleansing and it is most serious. Obviously, the Indonesian Government should remove the Islamic fighters far from the vicinity of Tentena, but they are not doing so.
	The fighters' removal would minimise the chances of an anti-Christian massacre, yet no such action is being taken, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's intervention last year. Perhaps he would do more good if he postured and travelled the world a little less and spent more time in the House focusing on home policies such as the new clause, which is relevant to our constituents and British taxpayers.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is extremely generous with his time and I thank him for giving way. He talks of appalling occurrences in Indonesia. What would be the consequences for aid to Indonesia if his new clause went on the statute book? Would it stop all aid to Indonesia?

Bob Spink: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given me yet another opportunity to reiterate that, had the new clause been on the statute book, the Indonesian Government might have been minded to prevent Laskar Jihad from moving into the Moluccas and murdering those Christians. Perhaps he is not aware that, so far, 6,000 Christiansnot 600 or 60have been slaughtered in the Moluccas. Even if only six had been slaughtered, that would still be serious.

Glenda Jackson: rose

Hugh Bayley: rose

Bob Spink: I must make progress, as other Members want to speak and I am taking up a lot of time. The new clause would concentrate the Government's mind on those valid issues. Whether they continue to give aid to Indonesia should depend on how much the Indonesian authorities are willing to do to take firm action against Laskar Jihad and restore order in the Moluccas and Sulawesi.
	As I said, thousands of Christians have already been slaughtered in the Moluccas and thousands more will perish in Sulawesi unless the Indonesian Government drastically improve their response to the situation. If the Indonesian Government continue their policy of simply trying to accommodate military Islamic groups, it will not be long before Indonesia becomes a safe haven for a variety of terrorist organisations, possibly including the al-Qaeda network.
	There are a number of steers by which Britain can help to promote human rights: we can go through the European Union, through the Commonwealth or along with the United States. We can also introduce new clauses such as this, which is designed to make much more effective the British Government's attempts to improve other countries' human rights records and to prevent the scandal of British taxpayers' money being used to support Governments who grossly violate human rights.
	Expressions of concern about human rights are important, and I readily thank the Government for what they do and the way in which they do it. However, we also need economic pressure, including the sanction of withholding international development assistance where appropriate, or at least making it conditional.
	To accept the new clause is to acknowledge the important principle that improving a country's human rights position greatly enhances its long-term development process, which is the overall aim of the Billand a good aim. I ask the Government at least to acknowledge that fact in dealing with the new clause. Common sense tells us that the new clause reflects the view of an overwhelming number of British citizens, who do not want their money used to support regimes that fail to respect human rights and religious freedoms, therefore inhibiting rather than promoting development in the longer run.
	By adopting the principle of new clause 1, the Government would not affect humanitarian aid. They could show that they really care about human rights and are prudent and sensible in distributing British taxpayers' money as aidas they should be.

Glenda Jackson: I want to speak against the new clause. As I said to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) in myas you pointed out, Madam Deputy Speakerover-long intervention, if his proposal represents a change in terms of his party's commitment to human rights, that is extremely welcome. I elucidated some examples of a total lack of care and concern for human rights when the Conservative party was in government, which I believed and still believe were shameful.
	What was equally shameful was the Conservative Government's inability to dispense taxpayers' money for overseas aid at a level which my constituents found acceptablenot to put too fine a point on it. The Conservative Government spoke about attempting to meet UN targets, but did nothing practical to reach them. This country's contribution, during the seemingly endless terms of Conservative government, was constantly reduced.
	I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on his scandalous misrepresentation of the Government of Indonesia. It is not Indonesian Government policy to enter into the activities to which he referred. Those are criminal activities. The hon. Gentleman significantly failed to point out that Indonesia is one of the most populous and one of the poorest countries in the world. For that Government to be able actively to engage in attempting to eradicate what I understand is mainly guerrilla activity is extremely difficult. Tribute should be paid to the present Prime Minister of Indonesia. Despite huge pressure, she has managed to retain her country's commitment to, and participation in, the international community's opposition to the events of 11 September and still actively support the international community's attempts to eradicate international terrorism and its roots.

Andrew Robathan: I apologise to the hon. Lady and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being here for earlier speeches, but I had another engagement.
	May I take the hon. Lady back to what she said about the Conservative Government's contribution to overseas aid? She is factually incorrectit is as straightforward as that. The overseas development aid given during the Parliament from 1992 to 1997 was greater, as a percentage of GDP, than that given from 1997 to 1999. It has now risenI do not criticise the Labour Government, because their aid programme has generally been goodbut Library figures show that aid went down in the first three years of the Labour Government.

Glenda Jackson: If the hon. Gentleman cares to check in tomorrow's edition of Hansard, he will find that I referred to Conservative Governments and their endless period in power. The period to which I referred was from 1979 to 1997, during which, if memory serves me rightly, this country slipped from being third in the international league of overseas aid donors to eighth or ninth in a list of 10.

Tony Cunningham: I want to explain what the figures are, so that we can all understand. I have them before me. When Labour came into Government in 1974, ODA as a percentage of GDP was 0.36 per cent.; when we left in 1979 it had risen to 0.51 per cent. When the Conservatives left office in 1997 it had gone down to 0.26 per cent., the lowest point that it had been at in 30 years.

Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving those figures, which are irrefutable.
	Let me return to the central thrust of the new clause. The hon. Member for Castle Point seemed to argue in a time warp in terms not only of the Labour Government's approach to international aid and its disbursement but of the extraordinary work done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and, it must be said, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There has been a transformation in the world's approach to how aid should be disbursed, to whom it should be given and the purposes for which it should be given.
	I do not wish to make a party political point out of this, because Labour Governments were guilty of it as undoubtedly were Conservative Governments, but in the past, aid was often linked to the economic needs of the donor country. We all know stories about tractors given to African countries being found, two years later, rusting at the side of the road because nobody had thought to fund those nations to pay for the spare parts that they needed. Nobody had considered that such countries could not afford the fuel for such vehicles. Virtually every hon. Member in the Chamber would have a story about that type of unproductive aid.
	However, the world has moved on. The hon. Member for Castle Point constantly repeated that his taxpayers did not wish to see their money going to Governments whose human rights record was lamentable. Nobody wants to see that, and that is not where the money that this country gives the developing world goes. All donor nations have acknowledged that the root cause that must be tackled, if the developing world is truly to develop in a sustainable way, is poverty. Poverty expresses itself in ways that are simple to see. It means that far too many children die of preventable diseases; far too many people have absolutely no access to clean water; millions of people lack the most rudimentary basic health treatments; and massive numbers of people can only hope to be able at some point to give their children an education.
	That is where the hon. Gentleman is way out of timeas I said, he is in a time warp. We all acknowledge that the best delivery of aid is via non-governmental organisations directly to people on the ground. That ensures that, in giving aid to third world countries, we help to take those millions of people out of poverty in a way that is direct, recognisable, easy to monitor and moderate.

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Lady said that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) was in a time warp. In my hon. Friend's defence, he was talking about how future legislation should be shaped. Much of her argument was predicated on the calculation of aid as a percentage of gross domestic product. Is not the percentage of GDP spent on aid a misleading measure if the size of the economy is not taken into account at the same time? When the economy is strong, the percentage of GDP may fall in absolute terms but there may be a cash increase in aid. To talk in percentage terms can be misleading, but that is what her argument is predicated on. I am sure she will accept that my hon. Friend was referring to legislation about the future.

Glenda Jackson: If the hon. Lady's description of what her hon. Friend's new clause is about is aid in the future, it is rather bizarre, because that would be a gross waste of taxpayers' money. Perhaps she has not learned the lessons of the past, when aid from Government to Government significantly failed to transform the lives of the people who needed it most. Heaven forfend that a Conservative Government should ever come back into power. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that if that were to happen, aid would go from Government to Government? That would be absurd.
	I am perfectly prepared to accept what the hon. Lady said about the percentages changing from year to year, but I am not prepared to accept that the diminution in aid during the Conservative Governments' regime was anything other than shameful for this country. Her argument seems to be predicated on the assumption that there will always be a need for the developed world to fund desperately poor countries. Surely we have learned that aid should enable the people of poor countries to equip themselves so that they can develop their own countries in a sustainable way. That is why the Department for International Development is giving primacy to the eradication of poverty, and to ensuring that children are educated, that there is basic health care, and that children have clean water to drink. I pay tribute to the Department for that.

Caroline Spelman: It is good to have an exchange of views on this point. If the hon. Lady applies the word shameful to a diminution in the percentage of GDP spent on aid during the last Conservative Administration, would she apply the same description to the decline in the percentage of GDP on aid during the early period of the Labour Administration?

Glenda Jackson: No, I most certainly would not. [Interruption.] Hon. Members had better wait. The Labour Government made it abundantly clear when they first came to office that they were attempting to deal with this country's problems, which the Conservative Government had created[Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Castle Point to laugh. If I remember rightly, he was laughing on the other side of his face when he lost his seat because the Conservative Government had failed to convince the people that they could govern. People had clear evidence of the economic incompetence that had placed this country in the economic position that the Labour Government found when we first came to power in 1997.

Jim Knight: The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) raised an interesting point when she said that the percentage will vary slightly if the economy is performing well. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) will agree with me that we should look at the trend. Under the Labour Government, the percentage has risen. The percentage in the United States, which the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) referred to, has consistently been appallingly low considering the wealth of that country.

Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friend reiterates a valuable point that has already been made. However, there is something more important in the points that the hon. Member for Meriden elucidated in her interventions. There is a perceptionI do not accuse the hon. Lady of thisthat the developed world's responsibility towards the developing or undeveloped world is based exclusively on the percentage of gross domestic product a country feels it is capable of handing out around the world or tossing into the various receptacles that are held out. That is not my perception of the responsibility shown by the developed world.
	The developed world should do a great deal more. DFID has led the way in many areas, and I give credit to those who believe that the money given is never going to be enough and that there must be a sharing of knowledge, ideas and techniques. I suppose that a brilliant accountant could tell us what that would represent in pounds, shillings and pence or dollars, but the idea that the Government have been at the forefront of developing has to do with valuing human beings. That is infinitely more powerful than a Government's commitmentalthough I like that commitmentto meeting United Nations targets.

Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Lady recognise that the issue of percentages was raised by her hon. Friends in their interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)? It is easy to see how the Government could increase their percentage. All they have to do is to continue to wreck the economy, and as our GDP declines, the percentage will go up and more and more people will realise how wise the voters of Castle Point were when, after four years of a disastrous Labour Government, they brought back my hon. Friend.

Madam Deputy Speaker: As interesting as these points about percentages are, we should get back to the main point of new clause 1.

Glenda Jackson: I have to say to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that if that was his attempt to cover up or half-heartedly apologise for the Conservative Government's shame, he should have stayed sitting on the green Benches. It was as lamentable an intervention as the Conservative Government's policies during their terms of office on the aid that this country should have been giving to assist the development of the third world.
	I come to the nub of my opposition to the hon. Gentleman's new clause. As my hon. Friends have said, if the percentage of GDP is the overriding decider of the disbursement of aidwhatever the definition of aid, and I have defined it as more than merely financialthat punishes the very people whom we should be most actively engaged in supporting. There has been a shift in the disbursement of aid. If that is the overriding policy, it negates the possibility of assisting the people who are suffering gross infringements of basic human rights to stand on their own feet and get rid of their Governments, not necessarily by violent means.
	One of the reasons why there is so much conflict in the world and why there are endless factions in Africa and the terrible stand-off in Colombia at the moment is that people have not been encouraged to free themselves of the view that they are perennially and eternally victims, because the basic tools have never been put into their hands. The basic tools are health, education and sufficient food to move out of the daily prison of ensuring that they have a life the day after.
	I remember going to Ethiopia in 1985. The worst of the second great famine was over, but to me it was absolutely fascinating how much time, energy and creativity people spent gaining enough in one day to ensure that they could live the second day. That was true for every member of a family. As soon as children were able to stand unaided, they had a job to do. When they became a little more capable, they would be given more demanding jobs. Babies might have to do no more than collect grass to feed animals; bigger children might have to herd animals, and once they could handle sharp implements they might cut the grass. The whole family worked all day simply to ensure that, perhaps, they could live throughout the next day. There was not even a perception of being able to live until the end of the week.
	That constitutes a gross waste of human energy and human creativity, in a country in which, despite the appalling nature of what the people had suffered, social structures remained firm. There were no riots. People were not murdering each other, or stealing. It was an amazing privilege to visit that country. If the new clause is passed, however, the hon. Member for Castle Point will condemn generations to the same circumstances, in which survival is all.

Tony Cunningham: I said in Committee that perhaps the single most important issue was that of the education of girls, which would take millions of people in developing countries out of poverty. The new clause would prevent that from happening in some countries, because it does not constitute humanitarian aid.

Glenda Jackson: That is a central point. We must move away from the idea that I think the world generally has at present, and accept that aid given directly to Governments is often non-productive. Aid to repressive Governments is absolutely non-productive.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point would condemn the very people whom he purports to want to help to being stuck for ever in a situation that it would be virtually impossible for them to escapeunless those who are willing to exploit the desperation of others intervened. We have touched briefly on the issue of international terrorism. I do not think anyone here would dispute the fact that it can take a hold in certain parts of the world precisely because of the desperate circumstances in which so many people find themselves.

Bob Spink: Either the hon. Lady is intellectually challenged, or she is purposely mischaracterising what I seek to do. I do not seek to condemn anyone; I seek to give people hope for the future. I want the possibility of real, sustainable, long-term development, rather than the counsel of despair that we have heard from Labour Members who propose short-termism in the extreme. How would they change the world for the better? How would they eradicate poverty, and ensure that those little girls received an education? What action do they propose, other than that suggested in the new clause?

Glenda Jackson: With the best will in the world, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he will have to live a long time before he intellectually challenges me. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] Oh yes: if you ask for it, you get it.
	The hon. Gentleman has clearly lost the thread of his own argument, quite apart from not understanding ours. The new clause would deny aid to those who need it most desperately. I also consider the idea that some of the most entrenched and abusive Governments necessarily change their attitude to their people because of the threat of possible withdrawal of international aid to be a fallacy. In many instances, they exploit that very factor to make their position of power even stronger.
	We all know of the most obvious example in the world today. Even as we speak, an attempt is being made to pursue that argument in Zimbabwe. It would be entirely wrong to punish people yet again for the sins of Governments whom, in nine cases out of 10, they have had no say in putting into power. That would drive international aid back from a position that I consider to be quite good at present, and would send entirely the wrong messages to those whom we want to move forward into a democratic life. It would be a recruiting sergeant for all who are only too willing to exploit human misery to secure and develop their own power bases.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Castle Point will reconsider and withdraw the motion, but if there is a vote I hope that the House will reject the new clause.

Jenny Tonge: At first I had a great deal of sympathy with what I thought the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) was trying to say, and I was prepared to listen to him. By the end of his speech, however, I was quite horrified. The amount of almost anti-Islamic rant made me extremely depressed.

Bob Spink: Pro-Christian.

Jenny Tonge: I am a Christian, and I hate the thought of preventing aid from going to a country where some sort of religious persecution is going on, whatever religion is involved. It is appalling to think that that could be deemed a reason for withholding aid.
	We need only look at Northern Ireland to see what Christian can do to Christian, or at Asia to see what Sikhs can do to Hindus, Hindus can do to Muslims and Christians can do to Muslims. It is endless. It is entirely irrational to suggest that the persecution of one religious group by another is somehow the responsibility of a Government who have adopted a certain human rights policy. I am sorry if I have offended the hon. Gentleman, but as I have said, I am a Christian, and I am thoroughly fed up with the unchristian attitude of an awful lot of Members who claim to be Christians as well.
	I thought that the idea of a list of countries was rather fun. It is wonderful, is it not? Think of the countries that could be listed as violating human rights. Subsection (2)(a) of the new clause refers to countries that have
	engaged in gross violations of the right to freedom of religion.
	Does that include the shaving of the heads and beards of deeply religious Muslim prisoners who have been taken to the United States? The hon. Gentleman may not think so, but if he was one of those deeply devout Muslimswe may mock them and think them a little mad, but never mindhe might consider such action a violation of his religious freedom.

Nick Hawkins: Perhaps I have missed something. Was the hon. Lady talking about the deeply devout Muslims in Guantanamo Bay just now? If soand that is how it seemedshe should bear in mind the fact that we are talking about some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, who are happy to murder Christians, atheists, agnostics and anyone else with no compunction.

Jenny Tonge: We are indeed talking about some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. I am merely saying that we must not violate their right to practise their religion: they must have that freedom. I do not question their guilt or otherwise. I simply say that what was done constituted a violation of their religious freedom.
	The list would be endless if we catalogued all the countries suggested in the new clause, and the proposal by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) that the Indonesian Government should be held responsible for all that goes on in the massive number of islands that call themselves the country of Indonesia is incredible. Moreover, as we have signally failed to stop religious groups persecuting each other in Northern Ireland, I think it would be very difficult to criticise other countries.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Lady and I agree on many of these issues, but may I make a factual point about the Muslims in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba? I understand that an executive order from President Bush states that they will have freedom to pray and freedom of religion. I also understandI am not an expert on the Koran, or indeed on Islam, but I have visited many Islamic countriesthat growing hair and beards is not required by the Koran. Those who have been on a haj tend to grow long beards, but I do not think that it is compulsory.

Jenny Tonge: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. What the individual feels about his religion is the important thing. Many Sikhs are happy to shave off their beards and not wear turbans but other Sikhs want to maintain that tradition and would consider it a violation if they were not able to. We have seen examples of that in this country with policemen's helmets and motor cycle safety helmets. It is a violation of their freedom to tell them what they must do. We must respect individual human rights as well as talking generally about human rights.

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jenny Tonge: May I make some progress, because the debate on this single new clause is going on a bit?
	I accept that the hon. Member for Castle Point proposed the new clause with the best of intentions, but we must always remember that in those countries where human rights are being abused live the people who most need aid of every kind, whether humanitarian or development aid. There is an important distinction. At times, he did not appreciate the difference between humanitarian and development aid.
	I am passionate about education; many hon. Members are. I want humanitarian aid to southern Sudanwe give only humanitarian aid to Sudanto include education. The civil war in that country, where human rights are violated daily, has meant that its people receive only humanitarian aid. Two or three generations have not received any education.
	That is surely wrong. If the new clause provides only for humanitarian aid and excludes education, it will deny those people a chance to learn what their human rights should be. It is only by educating people that they will ever learn about human rights and ever know what to do about the Government who are violating them. On that count alone, the new clause should be thrown out.
	The point about Afghanistan has been well made. Some hon. Members may remember that before 11 September many people, including me, were seriously worried about the famine that had developed in central Asiain Afghanistan and all the surrounding countriesbecause of three years of drought. In Afghanistan, it was made worse by a terrible Government called the Taliban. I called for Afghanistan to be bombed with food and aid.
	The bomb word was unfortunate, when I think of what followed, but if Afghanistan over the past 10 years had been flooded with food, aid and development, al-Qaeda might not have found a base there, 11 September might not have happened and we might not be having to pour reconstruction aid back into that country.

Andrew Robathan: Again, I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady says about Afghanistan. However, I do not quite understand how development aid in education can be put in place in a country without the support of the civil authorities. Is she suggesting entirely private schools that would be outwith any form of social and political structure in the country?

Jenny Tonge: That could have been channelled through the non-governmental organisations. In fact, I have spoken to a representative of one NGO that ran 150 schools for girls in Afghanistan in the run-up to 11 September. So it was happening. If we had done much more of that, perhaps the catastrophe would not have happened.
	Whichever way we look at it, there is no argument to say that we must deny people aid if human rights are being abused. It is too difficult to measure what we mean by that. I think that Opposition Members have the best of intentions, but the new clause is misguided.

Hugh Bayley: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), but I was not personally convinced and I do not think that he has carried the House with him. I am as passionate as anyone in the House about the need to defend and extend human rights. It is a perfectly right and proper objective of our aid programmes to seek to assist that process.
	I draw to the House's attention several factors that illustrate why the new clause, however well intentioned, would harm the victims of human rights abuse, rather than help them. Recently, the Select Committee on International Development visited some Afghan refugee camps in north-west Pakistan. While there, we saw people living in unacceptable conditions.
	One of the refugee camps we visited, Kachagarhi camp, had been there for 20 years. People were either not working and living on food aid, or working in the black economy. Only about a third of the children attended primary school. If one were trying to create a seed bed of resentment, those are the conditions one would want.
	The situation was bad enough when the Russians were in Afghanistan, but after they were forced out, western interest in the Afghan refugees declined and conditions in the camps got worse. They became a seed bed for anger against the west, in which Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations were able to recruit; we created conditions that helped that to occur. By providing long-term development assistance, therefore, we create conditions that make it less, not more, likely that terrorism will develop and that human rights will be abused.
	The states and regimes that consistently and horrifyingly abuse human rights tend not to be run by humanitarian democratsby the sort of people who will look at the United Kingdom statute book and say, We had better change our behaviour before we find that development assistance to this country has been slimmed down. I found it instructive that on the two occasions the hon. Member for Castle Point was asked whether he felt that human rights abuses should have led to a reduction or ending of aid to Afghanistan when the Taliban were in power, and to a reduction or ending of aid to Indonesia now, he wisely declined to give an answer. He would have been very unwise to say that we should have let the victims of the Taliban starve to death because of drought in central Asia, and that we should not give poor people in Indonesia opportunities to build a future.

Bob Spink: Two pointsfirst, my new clause excludes food aid, so people would not have starved. Secondly, it would have put pressure on the Taliban to look at human rights and to change what they were doing in a sustainable way. People would have lived in a better situation.

Hugh Bayley: Again, I do not think that Mullah Omar is the sort of academic, humanitarian, liberal-minded person who could be brought round to good common sense by our passing a bit of legislation. Do not forget that the most powerful nation on earth, the United States of America, spent three years asking the Taliban regime to give up the al-Qaeda terrorists who had bombed in Tanzania and Kenya so that they could stand trial. The Taliban were not the sort of liberal humanitarians who felt that that would make sense, so if we want to affect the behaviour of brutal dictators and human rights abusers, we must do tough things that hurt them. We must stop the aid to them. But had we stopped the aid that Afghanistan received even when the Taliban were in power, we would have hit not the Taliban but the victims of their human rights abuses. I do not think that that is what the hon. Member for Castle Point intends.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman will know that we did stop aid. UN sanctions prevented development aid from going in. I am a trustee of a mine clearance organisation for which 400 local Afghans worked. However, it could get no funds from the UK, because the Government abided by the sanctions against development aid. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I have got that wrong.

Hugh Bayley: We did not stop all development assistance to Afghanistan, even in those difficult times. However, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) makes the important point that an aid regime that stops and starts is ineffective. It can yield the sort of results that he and I saw in the refugee camps in Pakistan. People get angry when the helping hand that they think is coming from the west is taken away.
	Moreover, aid to Pakistan was halted after the military coup. For good human rights reasons, there was a pause. Hindsight is a great tutor, but I do not think that that pause was helpful, as it created the resentment against the west that has been so damaging.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point made a distinction between humanitarian aid and development assistance. If it were possible to make that distinction easily and clearly, in practice and on the ground, there might be some sense in adopting a modified form of his proposals. However, it is impossible to make that distinction on the ground.
	I shall share with the House two brief examples of that impossibility. They arose when I visited Sudan, a country that all hon. Members would say was a state that abuses human rights. I went there on behalf of a number of British NGOs to look at the human rights situation. Britain's Conservative Government of the time had a policyrightly, in my viewnot to give state-to-state aid because of the regime's human rights record. They did however provide some aid for NGOs to work with their local counterparts.
	At the end of my visit, I spoke to Baroness Chalker. I felt that the then Government's approach was right at the time, but that it should not be tied down in statute, as flexibility was needed to ensure swift response to changing events. However, what I saw in one of the camps for displaced persons around Khartoum threw into sharp relief the distinction between humanitarian aid and development assistance. Such camps contain hundreds of thousands of displaced people, internal refugees from the drought in the west of the country and from the civil war in the south.
	The aid agencies that we funded were able to take water to the squatter camps in the desert. Temperatures were at 120 or 130 deg F, and the agencies were able to take water in buckets on the backs of donkeys to the camps, because that was classed as humanitarian assistance. However, although the camps had existed for years, the agencies could not pipe in the water, as that would have constituted development aid.
	Does it make sense to stipulate in law that water can be taken in buckets on the backs of donkeys to hundreds of thousands of people living in the most rudimentary conditions in the Sahara desert, but that a water pipe cannot be built? It does not, because the people in those camps are the victims of the Sudanese regime. We should help them. If we do not, we shall be creating another seed bed for the sort of terrorism and extremism that this House rightly opposes.
	My second example is a little different, although it also comes from Sudan. A food-for-work project was being run by CARE International in north Kordofan province. Severe drought meant that many small pastoralists would have starved to death without the food and humanitarian aid that the organisation provided. The hon. Member for Castle Point says that that aid would get through to such people, whether or not the new clause was accepted.
	In return for the food aid, however, the people were building water reservoirshaffirsthat would enable their animals to drink throughout the drought, and would mean that people would not be long-term dependent on food aid. Would it have been sensible to say that we could give them food aid, but that we could not help them construct a safeguard against drought in an area stricken by drought? It would not.
	Finally, the haffirs were built mainly by the sweat of local people's brows as they worked with picks and shovels. For part of the work, however, digging equipment was needed to make the reservoirs effective and workable. Bulldozers needed to be hired, and in north Kordofan province only the provincial Government had them. To create food security for the people of north Kordofan, CARE International had to hire bulldozers from the Government of a state that abused human rights. That was done not out of a desire to aid that state, but out of a desire to aid its victims.
	I hope that the House will agree that both examples show how important it is to provide the food security and development infrastructure that people need. However, the new clause would render that impossible. I understand why the new clause has been proposed, and I accept that it is important to tie human rights advances in with development work, but I do not think that it would achieve that in practice.

Jim Knight: Like most hon. Members, I agree with the spirit of the new clause, which would restrict assistance to Governments guilty of gross violations of human rights. We do not want to support people who commit such violations, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), I remember with revulsion the support that this country extended to Governments such as those in Burma and Chile, who had committedand continued to commitgross violations of human rights.
	I have therefore considered the proposal with some care to determine whether I can support it, and I have listened to the debate. The central problem that needs to be resolved in connection with this new clauseand with new clause 3, which we may discuss lateris how we get countries whose Governments commit such violations to reform. Do we disengage completely from them, blacklist and cold-shoulder them so that they are left outside the international community, or do we engage with them?
	Sometimes we might want to do both things, but the new clause requires that only the cold-shouldering option can be taken. It would remove the option of engagement, which I believe should be taken up much more often.
	When I intervened in the speech by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), I mentioned a scheme in Belarus. It was funded by the EU, through TACIStechnical aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States. The scheme had two local government partnersMendip district council in Britain, and the authority in the city of Svetlogorsk. New clause 1 (4) states:
	No assistance shall be provided under Part I of this Act to the government of any country.
	Local government is part of Government, so the scheme that I am about to describe to the House would not have been allowed to progress, had the new clause been passed.
	The chief executive of Mendip district council, on a visit to Svetlogorsk, saw an extraordinary situation in which a city was experiencing an exponential rise in HIV/AIDS infection as a result of an epidemic of drugs in a new town created by Khrushchev in the 1950s. He populated the town with various ne'er-do-wells from throughout the Soviet Union so that they could work in a chemical factory. The indigenous population were skilled at growing their own narcotics. That was a fairly explosive combination, as one might expect, but it was kept under control by the Soviet state.
	When that state collapsed, there was an explosion in drug abuse, which led to an exponential growth in HIV/AIDS infection. When the chief executive of Mendip district council visited the city, following visits from children of Chernobylthe city is in the Chernobyl fallout areahe saw what was going on and saw that the local government there refused to acknowledge that there was any problem.
	The initiative and partnership that followed, funded by the European Union through TACIS, was an exchange of expertise. Mendip organised local government officers, drugs charities and health authority officers to travel to Svetlogorsk. They gave of their own time; TACIS paid only their air fares. They shared expertise in dealing with HIV/AIDS infection. As a direct result of that initiative, the exponential growth in HIV/AIDS infection in the city of Svetlogorsk levelled off. That partnership was then expanded into waste management and all sorts of matters that certainly would not be regarded as humanitarian assistance, but which represent a development of civil society.
	Part of the success of that partnership was due to the fact that the local government in Svetlogorsk was willing to acknowledge that there was a problem and was willing to publicise the problem. It was willing to train its own officers, and to tell local police officers, When you are searching a drug addict, do not put your hands in their pockets unprotected; otherwise you too may be infected. Such basic educational messages spread through the city and turned the situation around. I use that example to illustrate how helpful local government partnerships can be.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman speaks passionately on a subject about which he knows a lot, but he is missing the point of my new clause: it excluded medical aid.

Jim Knight: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I ask him to listen to what I am saying in turn. I am saying that what might appear to be simply medical aid developed, in this case, into many other areas, such as waste management; but more fundamentally, it changed the attitude of the mayor and the local administration. It has empowered the citizens of that city and made them engage with their government in a way that central Government would have nothing to do with. The nature of that central Government is pretty abhorrent to me, but the partnership works locally and, incidentally, it gave a great boost to the officers of Mendip district council.

Tony Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the new clause is the fact that it talks about
	medicine, medical equipment or supplies?
	If we were limited to providing humanitarian aid, we could provide the drugs, but we could not build the clinics or hospitals and we could not obtain the nurses and doctors for the long-term programmes that would benefit the country. The new clause would allow us to deal with patients once they were ill, but would not allow us to prevent them from becoming ill or to provide them with decent clinics and hospitals.

Jim Knight: I do not want to take up more of the House's time. I just wanted to use that example to impress on the hon. Member for Castle Point the fact that we do need the flexibility for Governments to engage, be it at central or local government level. I ask him to withdraw the new clause so that we may move on.
	There are times when the new clause probably would not work, anyway. Consider Cuba. Blacklisting by the United States has been tried and does not seem to have shifted Fidel Castro to date, unless I have missed the news. It could even be argued that we are not getting far with sanctions against Iraq. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the new clause and allow us to move on.

Caroline Spelman: At the start of the debate, I grew a little bit concerned that, having had very little party political point scoring on Second Reading or in Committee, we were about to descend into it now. We are returning to the final stages of the Bill after an exceptional break. We all understand the reasons why the final stages of the Bill had to be deferred from just before Christmas to make way for the emergency legislation. The passage of time has probably allowed us more time to reflect on the conflict in Afghanistan and its aftermath and the way in which the legislation would work in the case of such a country. In a way, the passage of time has allowed us to bring some fresh thinking to the discussion.
	I had the slight feeling, on hearing the exchanges that have just taken place, that it is quite difficult for the Labour party to hear fresh thinking from the Conservatives. We had quite a lot of exchanges devoted to what had happened in the past, when the Conservative party was in government. It may be proving quite difficult for the Government to hear from us the fresh thinking that we wish to inject into the debate. One of the few advantages of being in opposition is the chance to think againthe chance to do blue-skies thinking and to bring fresh arguments. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will give us credit for the fact that we are coming fresh to the debate. Many Conservative Members, including myself, were not in this place when the Conservative party was in government, so we feel particularly free to suggest new ideas.
	When I hear hon. Members say that it is simply too difficult to do somethingI heard the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) say that it was too difficult effectively to tackle Governments who are shown to have tolerated or perpetrated human rights abusesI feel that it is a challenge, and that we should be able to find a way of cracking that conundrum. I know, because I was told very early on as I tried to get to grips with my brief, that the received wisdom is that we should not make development assistance conditional on the receiving Government's having an acceptable human rights record.
	Later in the debate I shall cite some case studies. The present situation is not very satisfactory in the eyes of ordinary members of the public, to whom we as a party have been listening. When I talk to ordinary members of the public about increasing development assistance, they often voice to me the major reservation that the money will only get into the hands of the wrong people. They therefore do not feel a strong desire to increase the level of assistance.
	We share with the Government the United Nations target of increasing our assistance to 0.7 per cent. of GDP, but we must take the public with us. That is what it is all about. In taking the public with us, we need to try to satisfy the public disquiet over development assistance money getting into the wrong hands and being used for the wrong purposes. That is a basic motivation that underlies the new clause.
	The purpose of the new clause is to raise the concern that Governments should address human rights in their relations with other states where there is evidence of human rights abuses. There is always a danger of glossing over issues of human rights where other political expedients are seen as paramount.

Tony Cunningham: I have a fairly simple question. The amendment talks about gross violations of human rights. Many peoplealthough not everyonewould say that carrying out the death penalty, certainly for the individual, is a gross violation of human rights. Are you saying, by supporting your new clause, that any country that has the death penalty would therefore automatically be excluded from development aid and receive humanitarian aid only?

Caroline Spelman: I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker would immediately spring to her own defence to say that the new clause is not hers; it is that of my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), and I am speaking in support of the thrust of their new clause. Obviously, it would be for the Government of the day to decide what constituted a gross violation of human rights, but if the hon. Gentleman will be patient with me, I shall talk about a country that does use the death penalty in a way that I personally think constitutes a violation of human rights.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Lady has just told the House that it would be for the Government of the day to decide on a discretionary basis whether a country is a gross violator of human rights and, if that were the case, to decide whether to make aid available, but the Government already have that freedom. Legislation is not needed to give the Government the freedom to take a decision not to provide aid in the circumstances that she describes.

Caroline Spelman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the new clause would provide legislative underpinning to support Government action, whereas it is now less obvious to the public that we as a country are making such distinctions about what we condone and what we find offensive. What I mean will become clearer when I give some practical examples.
	The rather opaque jargon for that practice is critical engagementnot a phrase of which the man on the street or even I would immediately understand the interpretation. I believe that the correct interpretation is that that phrase allows the Government to raise human rights issues while continuing to maintain political and commercial relations.
	I should like to place on record the fact that we share Amnesty International's concern that that policy of critical engagement may be a fig leaf for business as usual. New clause 1 would require clear evidence of an improvement in a country's human rights record before it could be removed from a list of countries that the Secretary of State considered to be engaged in or to be tolerating human rights abuses. Being placed on the list would cut off the offending country's Government from assistance, with the exceptionI cannot emphasise this point enough because it has been missing from some of our exchangesof humanitarian assistance. It would certainly also not preclude providing assistance through non-governmental bodies. In the eyes of the public, it is very easy to understand that distinction, and there is no question of precluding such development assistance.
	The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) gave the hypothetical example of not allowing water to be piped in and having to bring it in by donkey, but, for example, in a country such as the Congo which needs humanitarian assistancewater and sanitation work needs to take placeobviously, the most intelligent solution is to provide water in the most efficient way possible, which, I should imagine, is not bringing it in by donkey.

Hugh Bayley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. It was not a hypothetical question; it was a practical, real-life example of a decision that a British NGO working in the Sudan had to make because of the Conservative Government's decision that they would support, through NGOs, humanitarian assistance such as providing water to people who were very thirsty in a displaced people's camp in the desert, but that they would not support development assistance such as building the infrastructure, a water pipe, needed to carry that water. That decision was forced on the NGO by the Government's policya policy that was sensible at the time. It is right that the Government should have the discretion to decide when to refuse to provide aid, but they should not be required by law always to take that decision.

Caroline Spelman: Let us get back to the future. I am sure that the House will not want to spend an entire evening debating historical policy, and that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the purpose of proposing amendments to legislation that is not on the statute book is to address how we conduct ourselves in the future. I simply want to stress the point that the new clause specifically states that humanitarian assistance should not be precluded. I have sometimes felt that that point has been misunderstood in our exchanges.
	Resistance to taking a stance against countries that have a poor human rights record has always centred on trying to avoid making the lives of innocent people more difficult, and I hope that the Opposition have made it perfectly clear that that is absolutely not our intention. Under the new clause, there would be no prohibition on the provision of medicine, medical equipment, food supplies and other humanitarian assistance. I hope that I have made it perfectly clear that the term humanitarian assistance would extend to the kind of infrastructure that is necessary to ensure that humanitarian assistance is effective and gets through.
	Whether Amnesty International's concerns are justified can be assessed only by looking at case studies of countries that fall into that category. One of our most notable human rights dialoguesif that is a fair description of what it isis with China, but respect for human rights is deteriorating even as the dialogue continues. According to the Foreign Office, China aspires to end the death penalty, yet capital punishmentto which the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) referred earlierremains widespread and its use has expanded. Almost 3,000 people were sentenced to death between April and June last year. Almost 2,000 of those sentences were carried out during that period, and the crimes included bribery, fraud and theft. That is very difficult to comprehend, certainly for me as a British citizen.
	The selection of China to host the Olympic games is seen by optimists as an opportunity to persuade that nation to show greater respect for human rights, but pessimists have the countervailing view that the honour of being chosen to host such a prestigious international sporting event shows an abusive country that it may continue as it pleases and still receive its reward. That sends a very mixed signal.
	Another topical example is the Government's stance towards development assistance to Zimbabwe. There are plenty of examples of human rights abuses, but one of the most flagrant was President Mugabe's announcement in November that the Government would not allow aid agencies to distribute emergency food supplies to Zimbabweans affected by famine. The Information Minister, Jonathan Moyo, claimed that aid agencies would use the opportunity to smuggle in election monitors and campaign for the opposition partythe Movement for Democratic Change.
	On numerous occasions, we have urged the Government to demonstrate to the Government of Zimbabwe that we do not accept a business-as-usual approach to those flagrant human rights abuses. Most recently, today, came the second of the debates in Westminster Hall that the Conservative party has requested on Zimbabwe. As the Hansard report of today's debates is not yet available, it is worth emphasising for the benefit of hon. Members some of the points that were made in that debate. Zimbabwe is a very good test case of what I am talking about. Because of the day-to-day images on television, the public are generally very well informed about the human rights abuses in that country, but we continue to provide development assistance.
	At the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister said that there would be
	no tolerance of . . . the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe.
	Those are strong words, but what does the phrase no tolerance mean in relation to the human rights abuses in Zimbabwe? So far, it has meant that the Government have taken no appreciable action. I am all the more concerned, given that the MDC is calling for help. A member of the MDC said:
	We are fighting on all fronts using the only tools we havethe truth, the written and spoken word, and the courage of our leadership.
	The MDC said:
	In this deteriorating situation where the abuse of civil and human rights has become commonplace, where fear rules and freedoms exist in word only, we urge the
	Governments of Europe
	to remember the pledge made in Nuremberg'Never again'.
	It also said:
	we urge the European Union to take appropriate measures.
	We, too, urge the Government to take appropriate measures, and the new clause would provide a legislative underpinning for them.

Jenny Tonge: The hon. Lady must realise that Zimbabwe is a difficult example to use to illustrate her point. The problem with the Zimbabwean Government is that they see us as the wicked colonial country. Therefore, any action that we take will reinforce their view. That is why the Movement for Democratic Change is calling for Governmentsnot just Britainto take action. The action should come from the Commonwealth and from the European Union, but not unilaterally from Britain.

Tony Baldry: rose

Caroline Spelman: I will reply to the intervention before I give way again.
	The hon. Lady says that Zimbabwe is a difficult example. The chances are that countries that are shown to abuse human rights will be difficult examples. They will hardly be easy, but that does not mean that we should flinch from the issue. To hide behind a sense of embarrassment about our colonial past would be seen by many ordinary people as an excuse for inaction. Worrying about our colonial past certainly did not stop the Prime Minister making pronouncements about Kashmir. I have difficulty understanding the hon. Lady's argument.
	Who is to provide thought and leadership in the Commonwealth if not Britain? Of course, we want other Governments to take action but, as the conflict in Afghanistan demonstrates, this country is not afraid of being brave and taking the lead.

Tony Baldry: I thought that I could help my hon. Friend by pointing out that, unlike the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), I took part in this morning's debate on Zimbabwe. Would it surprise my hon. Friend to learn that the Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), made a robust speech calling on the Government immediately to introduce sanctions against Zimbabwe? Is that not yet another example of the Liberal Democrats saying one thing in one place and another thing in another?

Caroline Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. In this respect at least, the Liberal Democrats have proved themselves consistent in their inconsistency.

Julian Lewis: As my hon. Friend knows, I initiated the debate in Westminster Hall. I posed the question as to whether liberal left-wing angst and the fear of being accused of neo-colonialism was a problem. It quickly became apparent that it was a substantial part of the problem, but I do not understand why such fears did not hold us back from intervening in Sierra Leone. I went to Sierra Leone and the people were only too delighted by our presence there. If there had been a poll on becoming a colony again, they would probably have voted for that. When people are in such desperate straits as the people of Zimbabwe are, the last thing that will be on their mind is the thought, Oh, we must support the Government again, because Mr. Mugabe is able to say that Britain is being colonialist again. The fears expressed are preposterous left-wing nonsense and the sooner we see an end to them, the better.

Caroline Spelman: I should have congratulated my hon. Friend on securing the debate in Westminster Hall. He is the second Conservative Member to have been successful in securing a debate on Zimbabwe. Labour Back Benchers were marked by their absence in contributing to the debate, and that is regrettable. However, I promised that I would not be drawn into the temptation of considering the party political aspects of this issue, so it would be a good idea to return to the main thrust of the new clause.
	I do not want to detract from the importance of Zimbabwe as an example and I hope that the Minister will return to the issue when he responds. How the Government conduct themselves in relation to a country such as Zimbabwe is very much in the public eye. Like it or not, our pasts are intertwined and I am sure that there is not a Member of the House who has not received an e-mail, letter or other communication from a constituent with relatives in Zimbabwe. The subject therefore involves our national interest.

Jenny Tonge: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: I was about to move on from the case of Zimbabwe and to turn to another one, but I will give way.

Jenny Tonge: A little bit of self-defence is necessary before the hon. Lady leaves the subject of Zimbabwe. I was not in Westminster Hall for the debate on Zimbabwe because I was doing something else at the time. However, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) spoke about taking a robust lead in the Commonwealth and the European Union so that we have multilateral action on Zimbabwe. That is the point that I wanted to make.

Caroline Spelman: Once again, this shows the value of debates in Westminster Hall. However, I wish to give the hon. Lady a piece of advice. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and I were present in the debate, and the issue of Zimbabwe crosses the boundary between foreign affairs and international development. Given the subject's topicality and importance, there is a case for the spokespersons on both subjects attending such debates.
	I am glad that we have tested the value of the new clause against a topical example. That is more valuable than testing it against what happened in the past, and perhaps even more valuable than discussing hypothetical impacts in the future. The situation in Zimbabwe is real and we all know that disaster looms. That is why we emphasise the need for the Government to act while there is still time.
	The other example that I wish to consider is the situation in Burma. More than 340,000 Karen people have been displaced as a result of Burmese military activity, and other ethnic minorities, such as the Shan and Kavenni peoples, have suffered terrible atrocities at the hands of the military, including extra-judicial executions, forced labour, rape, torture and the destruction of their villages. I know that the Minister is aware of that. Many people are forced to live in the jungle and, if they are seen, they can be shot on sight.
	Burma is one of the few countries against which a policy of isolation has been practised, but how do we get humanitarian relief to those who need it? The answer shows the practical thrust of the new clause, because the developed community faces yet another challenge in making sure that the aid reaches those who need it. That is especially true for those who live in countries where there is no dispute about the facts that gross violations of human rights have taken place and that the Governments of such countries have attempted to obstruct our efforts to get humanitarian assistance to those who need it. Again, the thrust of the new clause would be to provide the legislative underpinning that would help to ensure that assistance gets to where it is needed.
	There is no suggestion that humanitarian assistance would be blocked by the new clause's incorporation in the Bill. The new clause's main purpose is to focus the attention of the Government and, as it transpires, that of the Liberal Democrats on a conundrum that should not be regarded as difficult. It should be possible for us to find a way of working that addresses the public's disquiet that taxpayers' money does not always go to those for whom it is intended and deals with the discomfort that the public feel when assistance is given to countries that flagrantly abuse human rights.
	The new clause offers a refinement to the received wisdom that we cannot do anything about the problem for the fear of hurting those who are already down. Conservative Members contend that it is possible to refine policy in a way that will ensure that those who really need help will receive it while sending the clear message to those who abuse human rights that we do not accept such behaviour.

Hilary Benn: I welcome the opportunity that the debate on the new clause has provided. I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised his concerns and endorse his comments about the interest that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) takes in the subject and, particularly, in the problems faced by religious minorities. That issue was discussed in Committee.
	As several hon. Members said, if we reflect for a moment on our history as a country, it is clear that we do not have a particularly honourable record on religious discrimination. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) rightly drew our attention to the fact that, in parts of the United Kingdom, people are tragically still being killed because of their religion. We need to think about that.
	Fresh thinking is genuinely welcome. Although the debate has been wide ranging, a small party political element crept in. However, as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, it has not featured much in our proceedings. If the fresh thinking of the Conservative party includes coming to the conclusion that the aid budget will not be cut under a future Conservative Government, I would welcome that. It would be a sign that together we have moved on and made progress. Please can we have fresh thinking of that nature.
	If we are truly to eliminate poverty, as the hon. Member for Castle Point said, we need societies that promote a sense of value in their citizens. They need to be committed to equality, non-discrimination and the promotion of human rights. All of us can agree with those aims. However, the debate has clearly demonstrated that the difficult question is how we take those aims forward in relation to particular countries at particular times and in particular circumstances. A key question is to what extent we are prepared to engage with Governments who are abusing human rights or who have a questionable human rights record, in order to persuade them to mend their ways. The answer, as we know, is that we are prepared to do so, bearing in mind that a range of responses is possible, depending on the circumstances.
	Vietnam was mentioned. We are making, and continue to make, representations to the Government of Vietnam, who have made considerable progress in reducing poverty in recent years. We have raised the treatment of religious minorities with them, both in the EC-Vietnam joint commission meeting and, most recently, in September when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised it with his opposite number from the Government of Vietnam.
	We discussed Indonesia at length. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made the case on that most forcefully. I had the opportunity to visit Indonesia in September last year. The country has a fragile and emerging democracy, having come out of a long period of dictatorship. My hon. Friend was right to say that we must be careful. The circumstances are difficult. There is a conflict in Sulawesi, to which the hon. Member for Castle Point referred. There is much conflict and movement in Aceh as people fight for independence. President Megawati recently agreed to a high degree of self-government for Aceh in an attempt to respond to the legitimate concerns about self-government while not giving way to those who are fighting.
	When it comes to countries that have people who are linked with al-Qaeda or who have fought for that cause, we have to reflect on the fact that we are learning more and more about the countries in which those individuals find themselves. Indonesia is not the only country where supporters of al-Qaeda have been present.
	On the death penalty, I have great sympathy with using that as an example of a gross abuse of human rights. Indeed, I cannot think of a clearer abuse. However, should international development aid be the only instrument that we use to pursue a case against the use of the death penalty by other countries? Should it be the only instrument of influence? I yield to no Member of the House in my detestation of the death penalty, but we have to ask whether the new clause sets out the right approach. We need to reflect carefully on the wording of the new clause, and I hope that we do not accept it.
	The hon. Member for Meriden mentioned Burma. She knows that the UK provides targeted humanitarian assistance for the most needy in that country, working strictly through the United Nations or international NGOs, and not with the military regime. That is a good illustration of the extent to which the Government use their judgment to decide on the nature of engagement depending on the regime or Government with whom we are dealing. Each case has to be dealt with on its merits. It is not a matter of having a policy that is black or white, yes or no, for or against; the issue has many shades of grey.
	The new clause gives rise to practical difficulties because it adopts a black-and-white approach. First, drawing up a list of countries that engage in or tolerate gross violations of human rights would raise controversial, difficult and practical issues in defining what gross means in that context. For instance, some countries may have reasonable human rights records in general, but commit serious violations of specific rights. Any attempt to draw a line between the gross violaters and countries with less than perfect records could lead to inconsistency, controversy and judicial review of the Secretary of State in exercising that discretion.
	The second practical difficulty of a black-and-white, either-or approach is that, on the one hand, countries that are not on the list might think, Oh well, we're okay. We've somehow got a seal of approval. We don't have to worry about our performance. On the other hand, those countries that are on the list might become less willing to listen to public and international opinion. It is often in those countries where violations are most persistent that we are keenest to engage. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate made a powerful case for engagement.
	The House will be aware that when we can work with Government officials, we seek to do so. If that is not possible or effective, we work with NGOs and other organisations to promote mutual understanding and tolerance. A genuine dialogue on human rights is the best way to achieve lasting change. The restrictions in the new clause would limit the range of approaches that we could take, and we would run the risk of diminishing our capacity to work in the interests of the people who are suffering from human rights violations. A number of my hon. Friends made that point forcefully.
	The object of the elimination of poverty must extend to people who might be discriminated against for their thoughts, their conscience or their religion. We have to be able to work with the Governments of countries where human rights are being abused if we are to improve the rights of the poorest people. Bangladesh is a good illustration of that. None of us would think of putting that on the list, but its landless have been fighting for years to win their rights for land. The law provides for that, but they are not able to access it because the existing landowners have hired heavies to make their lives difficult. In some cases, according to the landless labourers that I met, the local police had beaten them up when they tried to exercise their rights. We have a big programme in Bangladesh. Part of that relates to police sector and security reform. On the basis of my visit there last week, I believe that it is right and proper, despite those difficulties, that we should be fully engaged in supporting the Government of Bangladesh who are keen to make progress in overcoming those problems.
	My final point relates to subsection (4) of the new clause. The hon. Member for Castle Point came close to acknowledging that the wording of the new clause leaves something to be desired. That was reflected in the fact that, with the best will in the world, he had some difficulty in answering the pertinent questions put to him by a number of my hon. Friends about how we would interpret the provision in relation to specific examples. To take Zimbabwe, to which the hon. Member for Meriden referred, the fact that the proposed exemption for humanitarian assistance refers specifically to
	medicine, medical equipment or supplies
	is significant, because one programme that we are supporting there is trying to deal with the scourge of HIV/AIDS devastating that country, as well as other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, in part by working with Government agencies or bodies. Clearly, medicine and medical equipment would not be affected by the new clause, but what about awareness programmes? On any interpretation of the wording of the new clause, one could not describe an awareness-raising programme to get people to think about the dangers of HIV/AIDS as constituting
	medicine, medical equipment or supplies.
	The way in which we respond to the terrible problems in Zimbabwe will rightly be a matter of continuing debate inside and outside the House, but the kind of activities that we are currently supporting in that country, such as developing a standard training curriculum for family carers in local languages for HIV/AIDS, and producing mass information self-help materials on managing health, for example, to prevent a cough from turning into TB or to make sure that safe sex is practised, would, I am afraid, be ruled out by the wording of the new clause. For that reason, while I freely acknowledge the importance of our debate and the fact that the hon. Member for Castle Point and the Opposition have rightly raised matters which must continue to occupy our minds and need consideration, I am afraid that the new clause is deficient and would create all the difficulties to which my hon. Friends have drawn attention. For that reason, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press it to a vote.

Bob Spink: I listened to the Minister carefully and am grateful for his kind words, particularly about the principles behind the new clause, and the thoughtfulness with which the House has considered the proposal. I am disappointed that the Government are not yet ready to give the people of this country a more sensible and purposeful means to distribute aid, which would support sustainable improvements to human rights while protecting humanitarian aid.
	My proposal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found good in principle but difficult, and so has not been tried. I tabled the new clause in a genuine effort to improve the Bill, which I generally support. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has regularly suggested to the Government that they give more aid to Iraq, but the Government rightly continue to refuse to do so for the reasons set out in the new clause. Are not the Government, when they choose, already adopting that provision as policy?

Hugh Robertson: My hon. Friend touched on an important point. I have been struck by the fact that, in many cases in the past 10 years, we have started to deliver humanitarian aid on the back of conflict, as we have seen in Bosnia and most recently in Afghanistan; that has certainly been the case in a number of places in the middle east. Does my hon. Friend not feel that in such situations it is helpful to have the kind of guidance proposed in new clause 1?

Bob Spink: My hon. Friend is right; the new clause would provide yet another mechanism for the Government to promote both human rights improvements and democratic governance around the world.
	I believe that the arguments that I have made tonight are sound, and I trust that they will shape Government policy in future. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3
	  
	Conditions applicable to aid disbursed via third parties

'The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that no United Kingdom Government aid for a developing country or countries which is to be dispersed via a third party (including multilateral development banks, United Nations agencies, the European Development Fund, and institutions of the European Union) is made available to that third party unless he is satisfied that it is likely to contribute to the achievement of the objectives set out in section 1 above applicable to development assistance.'.[Mrs. Spelman.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	On Second Reading, the common ground between Members of all parties was apparent and arose largely because the Bill puts poverty reduction at the heart of the Department's spending. New clause 3 was tabled in that spirit and seeks to ensure that any British aid disbursed via a third party is focused on poverty reduction. In its current form, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to provide funding for bodies that do not have poverty reduction as their primary aim.
	Clause 1 says:
	The Secretary of State may provide any person or body with development assistance if he is satisfied that the provision of the assistance is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
	That is the purpose of the Billto limit, or rather to clarify, which individuals or bodies are entitled to funding from the Department for International Development. In Committee, the Minister told us that the Bill's clarity and simplicity were one of its virtues. However, the clarity of clause 1 is lost in clause 4, which states that the Secretary of State may provide funding to
	any organisation which exists (wholly or partly) for one or more relevant purposes
	or may
	contribute to any fund that is intended to be used (wholly or partly) for one or more relevant purposes.
	Our new clause would try to restore clarity to the question of which bodies can receive funding, and which cannot. It would ensure that no future Secretary of State could provide funds to bodies that do not contribute to a reduction in poverty. It does not necessarily constitute a criticism of bodies that we currently fund, but provides a safeguard, so that future spending is provided only to bodies that share our development objectives.
	In almost every case, bilateral aid programmes provide better value for money than those of multilateral agencies, especially the European Union. The new clause would seek to ensure that our aid budget was not wasted on projects that did not uphold the same standards as bilaterally funded projects. There is no good reason why we should expect or accept lower standards from multilaterally funded projects. I should point out that the Conservatives recognise the value of multilateral aid, and do not think that Britain should act alone on international development. No single country can end world poverty; only by a concerted effort from all donor countries and multilateral institutions will we be able to tackle global poverty. It would therefore be wrong of the Secretary of State to provide UK funds to bodies that do not share that objective.
	The new clause is important because we spend a high proportion of our development budget on multilateral aid. In 1999-2000, DFID spent 1.3 billion on multilateral aid; in the last five years, it has spent nearly half its annual budget on multilateral aid. The largest chunk of multilateral aid is provided via the European Union. Indeed, between a quarter and a third of the entire development budget is given to the European Union to disperse. Many Members have serious reservations about whether that is the most useful way in which to spend our overseas aid. It is true that a reform programmeBritish Commissioner Chris Patten is largely in charge of itis under way, but its fruits have yet to appear in their full glory.
	We currently provide nearly one third of all that development assistance, nearly 800 million worth of British taxpayers' money, through the European Union. When the International Development Committee conducted an inquiry into the future of the European Community development budget, it was deeply critical. It identified
	an unacceptable neglect of the needs of the poorest countries in the world.
	On the management of development assistance, it said that
	the excessive underspends in so many of the external programmes reveal a Community unable to manage and disburse its resources, but unwilling for political reasons to take the necessary budget action.
	The Select Committee revisited the question of European effectiveness more recently. The report that I have mentioned was published in 1999, but the Committee subsequently considered the effectiveness of the European Union's development assistance in a progress report undertaken last year. It found that while there had been significant improvements in the policy framework, they had yet to penetrate the legal, political and policy instruments governing European programmes in developing countries.
	For the first time, poverty reduction has been identified as a central objective of development programmes. Improved communication between the directorates of the European Commission, the simplification of procedures and longer planning horizons are all part of the reform process that is being put in place by Commissioner Patten. One of the most radical new ideas is deconcentrationa word that, like all European jargon, needs unpacking. It is used to describe the process of delegating authority and staff to Commission offices overseas. However, it has given rise to concern among NGOs that they in turn will have to increase their numbers of staff in the field, which will present an additional administrative cost that they are reluctant to bear.
	We welcome all those initiatives for reform, but we recognise the Select Committee's assertion in its progress report that it may be several years before we see significant improvement. We advocate that, during that time, we should not entrust the European Union with a greater share of our multilateral development assistance. Let the Commission demonstrate that it can do a better job with the money that we already give it. In that regard, we were surprised to learn this week of the Secretary of State's decision to allow 120 million of reconstruction aid for Afghanistan to be channelled through the EU. For someone who described the EU as the
	worst agency in the world,
	that looks like a Damascene conversion.
	In answer to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), the Secretary of State said only on Monday that she remained concerned that even NGOs were being kept waiting for payment for work they had completed for the European Union. She said that delays
	cause real hardship to the organisations and individuals concerned.[Official Report, 21 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 604W.]
	It seems even more strange that she is willing to give the EU more money to play with.

Tony Cunningham: For clarification, are we talking about the European development fund, the European Parliament's development committee budget, which is about 2.8 billion euro, or the European Community Humanitarian Office's humanitarian aid budget?

Caroline Spelman: I am talking about the decision taken by the Secretary of State at this week's Tokyo conference in respect of reconstruction money. Rather than being given bilaterally and directly by Britain to Afghanistan over the next five years, a significant proportion is to be channelled through the European Union's collective effort for reconstruction. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is difficult to comprehend why the Secretary of State has taken that decision, given the reservations that she expressed as recently as Monday, when she said in the written answer to which I have referred that she remained concerned about the way in which the European Union treats NGOs that undertake work on its behalf, but which they must initially fund themselves. Some of them are kept waiting for their money for as long as 18 months. I am sure that British donors would be anxious to know that the money that they raise or donate directly for humanitarian purposes may yet have to be used by some of these aid agencies to pay bank loans while they are waiting to be paid by the European Union for the work that they have completed. That is an untenable situation.

Hugh Bayley: I think that the hon. Lady is mistaken on that point. What happened in Tokyo is that Britain pledged money from its DFID resources: 200 million for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. The European Union has pledged additional money for that purpose from its budget, to which we contribute. It is not that our Secretary of State has decided to channel some of her money through the EUit is an EU decision. The reason why the EU has pledged so much is that we are there saying that this is an important priority and money is then pledged by other EU member states. Surely she would support the policy.

Caroline Spelman: The Minister may well be able to clarify the situation. As the Secretary of State has not yet returned from Tokyo, it is difficult for us to be absolutely clear about what she has and has not pledged to do. On Monday, press reports stated explicitly that 120 million of the total sum that the British Government have decided to allocate to the reconstruction of Afghanistan will be channelled through the European Union. That is what is causing disquiet among Opposition Members. We are not satisfied that the European Union makes the best fist of disbursing the money that it already receives from our Government and we are extremely uncomfortable about the prospect of more being given for the same purpose.

Hugh Bayley: I share the hon. Lady's concern about the need for the European Union to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its distribution of development assistance, but I do not believe that we should renationalise such assistance and allow all other member states to do so. In other words, I do not believe that we should take development assistance away from the EU. Is she suggesting that EU member states should stop channelling money through the EU or not?

Caroline Spelman: For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who for some reason may not have been listening to what I said about five minutes ago, I shall re-read the relevant section of my speech. I said that I should point out that the Conservatives recognise the value of multilateral aid, and that we do not think that Britain should act alone on international development. I do not think that I could be more explicit. There is no question of repatriating multilateral aid. We would like only to be satisfied that the taxpayers' money that is given in that way is used efficiently and effectively. The Select Committee report decided pretty definitely that it is not used in such a way and that substantial improvements could be made.
	In good faith, we believe that Commissioner Patten is doing his best to achieve reform. However, the Select Committee progress report indicated that progress was extremely slow. My meeting with Commissioner Patten a few days before Christmas confirmed that there was no small frustration on his part about the slow progress of reform, for which there are two principal reasons. The Cresson affair and past fraud sullied the reputation of the European Commission. That led to the introduction of procedures that require no less than 22 different signatures on each individual project. I saw the files sitting on Commissioner Patten's desk. As he pointed out, with the best will in the world, getting 22 different people to sign an individual project causes a certain amount of delay. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of man to design a reform that is strong in cracking down on any possibility of fraud and financially rigorous, but does not cause disproportionate delay. The Opposition would certainly like to see such reform. We remain concerned that progress is so slow and believe that we should not be increasing the aid that we provide in such a way.

Jenny Tonge: I, too, am confused about what the hon. Lady is saying. Is she suggesting that we should suspend all our contributions via the European Union until it is more efficient at disbursing the money? If not, what is her argument? If she does not believe that, surely she is saying that we should carry on making our contributions through the European Union, despite the fact that she is worried. I do not understand what she is saying.

Caroline Spelman: I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, understand what I am saying. For the sake of claritythis is the third time that I have spelled out this pointlet me say that we accept the giving of British aid multilaterally and the purpose of doing so. However, we think that it is responsible for both the Opposition and the Government to satisfy themselves that that aid is given efficiently and effectively. Plenty of evidence from the Select Committee report shows that that has not been done as efficiently and effectively as the Committee would like, and I add my name to that sentiment.
	Earlier, I specifically stated that we accepted the need for continued multilateral aid. However, we do not support an increase in such provision through the European Union until significant progress has been made on the reforms. The Secretary of State has not yet been able to return to the House to make a statement on the precise decisions that she has made at the Tokyo conference. However, we are disquieted by press reports, which are perhaps misleading. They led those of us who have to depend on them as a source of information to believe that it has been decided to channel 120 million of British taxpayers' money for the reconstruction of Afghanistan through the EU. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is the case. I am sure that I am not alone in experiencing disquiet about that.
	The Bill aims to ensure that aid is spent to reduce poverty and not primarily for political reasons. Yet a proportion of UK development money to Europe is spent on pre-accession aid to enable countries in central and eastern Europe to join the EU. We support enlargement, but the requirement always to consider whether aid disbursed by the EU focuses on poverty reduction is fair.
	The new clause is not intended to stop the UK providing funds to the EU aid budget. I hope that that is explicitly clear for the benefit of those who failed to understand that the first time that I said it. The Secretary of State may believe that, for all its flaws, the European aid budget has the required poverty focus. Some of the bodies that we fund heavily do not share our view of the way in which development money should be spent.
	The new clause is in the spirit of the Bill. It would extend the high standards that we expect from our bilateral expenditure to multilateral expenditure. It is a reasonable amendment that contradicts nothing in the Bill. I hope that everyone who believes that our budget should be used to reduce poverty in the developing world will support it.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is trying to achieve an aim that I wholeheartedly support. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties agree that the administration of European Union overseas development assistance should be improved. The International Development Committee has stated that in three reports. Members of the Committee returned yesterday evening from meeting Poul Nielson, the Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, and other officials to ascertain progress on the reforms. The Committee will shortly meet Chris Patten. I therefore support the hon. Lady's aim to improve the quality of EU aid.
	Like the hon. Lady, I want the poverty focus of the EU to be as sharp as that of the Department for International Development in this country. The Bill rightly gives that objective statutory backing. However, the new clause will frustrate rather than facilitate that objective.
	In 1997 I introduced a private Member's Bill on overseas development and co-operation. It got nowhere, but it sought to amend the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 to make the alleviation of poverty the prime focus of British aid. That measure went the way of most private Members' Bills, and I am delighted that we have a Government who introduce legislation in Government time to achieve the end that I sought in 1995.
	When I promoted my Bill, I tried to achieve the aim that the hon. Lady is trying to achieve in new clause 3. I wanted to make the alleviation of poverty the primary objective of our bilateral aid and to ensure as far as possible that it also applied to agencies through which Britain channelled multilateral aid. It is the right goal for which to strive.
	When I tried to draft the Bill, I experienced the same difficulty as the hon. Lady. Her new clause provides that no UK aid for developing countries should be disbursed through a third party such as institutions of the EU
	unless . . . it is likely to contribute to the achievement of the objectives set out in section 1.
	It is inevitable that part of the work of multilateral agencies, including European institutions, the World Bank and others will not have a poverty focus, so the new clause would prevent Britain from being a partner in such multilateral agencies. That would be a disaster because the Department's good, progressive policies have pushed a poverty focus to prominence in many of them. For example, the World Bank has adopted a poverty focus.
	In May last year, the European Union agreed to make poverty a primary aim of its development work, not least because of the Select Committee's work in the previous Parliament and pressure from the Department. If the new clause was accepted, we would be unable to contribute through the multilateral agencies. We therefore would have no voice or influence in the EU and we would not be able to ensure the positive changes that the hon. Lady seeks.
	I am pleased that the hon. Lady has raised the issue with which new clause 3 deals. When I drafted my Bill, the best that I could do to make that point was to insert in the 1980 Act a provision that stated:
	Where the Secretary of State is contributing to programmes to offer assistance to countries and territories outside the European Union in conjunction with other member states, he shall use his best endeavours to persuade the Council of Ministers to observe the principles set out in section 1(2) of this Act.
	Clause 1 in my Bill established the poverty focus. The Secretary of State has been using her best endeavours in the Council of Ministers. She has argued for a greater poverty focus for the European Union and that has led to the good policy change that the hon. Lady mentioned in her speech.
	If our contributions through multilateral agencies, including the EU, were proscribed, we would not only fall foul of our treaty obligations, but it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to argue for good, progressive changes to which she has been so successful in getting our bilateral aid and some multilateral agencies to subscribe.
	I say well done to the hon. Lady for raising such an important issue, which we must continue to debate in the House and to pursue with the multilateral agencies through which we channel aid. However, I do not support the new clause. Although it is a vehicle for a good debate, it would be a disaster if it was accepted. I hope that she will withdraw it.

Jenny Tonge: I have some sympathy for the new clause. At the beginning of her remarks, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) asked whether bilaterally funded aid was better than multilaterally funded aid. That is an important question, which we must consider. From my limited experience as international development spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, I have concluded that we need more multilateral aid and bigger, more co-ordinated projects. It is quite remarkable to seefor example, as the Select Committee did when it visited Rwanda a couple of years after the genocidethe dozens, if not hundreds, of different agencies all working in the same country, often duplicating some tasks and not covering others. There is often an air of chaos, with a Government unable to get to grips with what is going on in their own country.
	My answer to the hon. Lady's proposal is, therefore, no, I do not want to see a lot more little bilateral projects going on. The world has to join together through the multilateral agencies to provide aid on a much bigger scale, with much more ambitious projects that do not duplicate one another.
	As we heard from the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), the multilateral agencies are taking on the poverty focus. It is remarkable what has happened in the short time that I have been spokesman on these issues for my party. Certainly, the World Bank, under Wolfensohn, has taken on the poverty focus in a big way. A wonderful example of that is the fact that the World Bank was the first to pull out of the Ilisu dam projectabout which many hon. Members were concernedand say, No, this is not sustainable. This is not a good project, and it must not go ahead. The World Bank led the way, followedas it happenedby Balfour Beatty, but we shall never know what our own Government would have done about that, because it is no longer relevant.
	The multilateral agencies are showing signs of adopting the poverty focus. The European Union is another case in point. I castigate the Government over the Ilisu dam because they were very slow and behaved appallingly over it, but they have certainly moved the European Union's poverty focus. I well remember sitting on a committee looking at Court of Auditors reports into how the European Union spent its moneyI have told this story many timesand being horrified that a project dealing with HIV-AIDS prevention in South Africa had had its money earmarked five years earlier, yet that money was still sitting in a bank five years later; nothing had happened. It was absolutely appalling, and I asked at the time how many people had contracted HIV and AIDS and died during the delay in that project.
	I do not, therefore, view the European Union development budget through rose-tinted spectacles. It has had huge deficiencies, but it has also made great progress. In fact, Chris Patten is one of my constituents, and I am very proud of him, even if he wasisa member of the Conservative party, and of the work that he has been doing with other people in Europe. Things are moving there, and there are signs that the process will become much more efficient. We will not make the European Union more efficient by threatening to withdraw our funds, or by getting difficult when it is facing huge problems such as the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
	I have massive reservations about the European Union, but we must press ahead. By being there, and by being more engaged in what Europe is doing, we shall see huge improvements over the next few years. I have to castigate the Conservative party over this. If it had not been so indifferent and uninterested in the European Union from the very beginning, perhaps the aid budget would have been better spent; perhaps there would not have been all the bureaucracy that has held up the disbursement of aid. If the Conservatives had only been there at the beginning, framing provisions in the way that they think they should have been framed, things might have been very different. It is no good their criticising the European Union, when they failed to engage at the important time when it was being formed.

John Baron: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jenny Tonge: No, time is short and we need to get on.
	There are good points to this proposal. It has made us think, and put on record that hon. Members are seriously concerned about how the multilateral agencies operate. We must, however, go on supporting them, because the way forward is through every country in the world, not just the multilateral agencies, joining together to do something about poverty in the rest of the world.

Tony Baldry: I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) because she reminds me of why I could never be a Liberal Democrat. I shall tease her just a little by asking her who she thinks it was who led the United Kingdom into the European Union. It was the Conservative party. We were there at the beginning; I was there, and many of my hon. Friends were there. We were all involved in the Britain in Europe campaign during the referendum, so let us have fewer lectures about Conservative involvement in Europe. But I am just teasing the hon. Lady.
	I entirely agree with every word that the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said, and I do not wish to repeat any of his arguments. He and I, and the hon. Member for Clydebank and somewhere that not even Labour Ministers can pronounce

Tony Worthington: Milngavie.

Tony Baldry: We are all members of the Select Committee on International Development, and we have spent the last two days in Brussels questioning and listening to Commissioner Nielson. The Select Committee has published three reports in the past criticising European development aid. I would not wish to pre-empt our report, but we got the sense of the institutions of Europe, the Commissioners and everyone involved in development aid wanting to get to grips with this matter, and of their getting to grips with it. I am sure that there are points to be made at the margins, but the thrust of what is happening in the European Community is reform and the desire to get to grips with it.
	I have one or two brief points that I want to make, in addition to what the hon. Member for City of York said. Hon. Members have to find ways of questioning and scrutinising Ministers more closely about what happens at Council of Ministers meetings. This is not just a development aid problem; it goes right across the institutions of Parliament. I have no doubt, from everything that we have heard, that the Secretary of State for International Development is one of the more robust Ministers in the EU Councils responsible for international development in terms of trying to ensure that as many of the EU programmes as possible are poverty focused.
	Our ability to get information on those issues is, however, fairly limited and tends to be obtained from occasional written parliamentary questions, either before or after a Council of Ministers meeting. How can we ensure that we get fuller information from EU Commissioners? Members of the Select Committee are fortunate in that we go and question Commissioners from time to time. Indeed, Commissioner Patten is going to be in the House on Monday week, answering questions from the International Development Committee.
	I am conscious, however, that our colleagues in the European Parliament have much greater access to what is going onthey are, of course, by definition, there in the European Parliament. In Brussels, I felt that various areas of policy had become something of a secret garden. That was not intentional; no one actually wished to keep us away from the information in question, but simply as a consequence of the rhythm of how policy develops in Europe, we do not always get the full effect of what is happening.
	It would probably be helpful if those of us in the House who take an interest in international development met United Kingdom members of the European Parliament's Committee on Development and Co-operation. We were fortunate enough to meet a number of them on Monday evening, and what they had to say was extremely interesting, on a whole range of issues. They had insights into policy development that were sometimes different from ours. I think that we helped them with insights into policy development here. Part of the suspicion that we sometimes have of the European Union and its institutions would be allayed if we in this House could work out better mechanisms for interacting with the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Commission. Notwithstanding the fact that we have now been a member of the European Union for almost a generation, we have not yet succeeded in that.
	The International Development Committee will, I am sure, try to talk to Commissioners, officials and colleagues in the European Parliament at least once a year, but that is not a substitute for the rigorous, continuous involvement between this place and elsewhere in Europe which is necessary. We need to consider how we can improve that situation. As I came away from spending two days talking and listening to people in Europe, I had a clear feeling that there is a deficit, not in Europe's institutions but in the way in which the two places work together.

Roger Casale: Having participated in the debate on Second Reading and followed closely, through Hansard, the debate in Committee, I have been very impressed with the level of cross-party consensus on the Bill.
	I fear, however, that on new clause 3 there is a danger of the good intentions that informed the Conservative party's support for the Bill running up against the intransigence of its general foreign and European policy. Its suggestion that Britain should be involved in multilateral aidfor example, through the European Commissionbut that we should be able to exercise the threat of withdrawing that aid every time a project breaks down brings to mind that rather unsuccessful mantra about being in Europe but not run by Europe, which was repeated so many times before the last election. The Conservative party is playing the same record again and again.

Caroline Spelman: I have said not once but three times that there is no question of withdrawing multilateral aid; we challenge the idea of giving more aid, especially for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, until we are satisfied that the reforms have really taken effect.

Roger Casale: I rather suspected that I might become the fourth Member who has raised the issue with the hon. Lady to have my interpretation of her remarks corrected, and she has not disappointed me. She has, as she made clear, been challenged on this matter four times, and she has not yet ruled out the fact that the purpose of the new clause is to provide a lever controlling the distribution of multilateral aid whereby Britain could withdraw its participation in an individual project if we felt that there was a flaw in the management or delivery of aid.
	Surely the whole point of multilateralism is that we pool our resources, and we must put our trust in the relevant institutions, which in this case includes the European Commission, to undertake proper monitoring and exercise effective control.
	Just this morning, in European Standing Committee B, we had a long and very interesting debate about the way in which the European Commission monitors, through the Court of Auditors, the aid and assistance that has been given to the Palestinian Authority.
	We discovered that there are many difficulties in the distribution of that aid which arise from the management structures and the effective co-ordination of the different agencies involved. Not least among those difficulties, of course, are the political situation and the deterioration of the security crisis in the middle east. Surely, however, it is the job of the Court of Auditors and the European Commission to exercise its judgment in relation to these matters. We must monitor that process, and there are mechanisms for doing so multilaterally to determine whether it is right to continue to make that aid available.
	In the Committee this morning, some hon. Members felt that we should be cautious about giving further aid to the Palestinian Authority. I was not one of them; I think that we should be stepping up our aid in this instance. It would be wrong if we in the UK reduced our commitment to the European Union's strategy for stabilising the middle east through support for the Palestinian Authority simply because we had come to the view that we should be more cautious.

David Cairns: I apologise to my hon. Friend because I have not been here for the whole debate, as I had another engagement. I suspect that he may have been referring to me when he spoke of some members of the European Standing Committee who take a slight hard-line view on this matter. I am sure that he will accept that the reservations of some hon. Members arise not from any lack of generosity or of a willingness to engage in the reconstruction of places such as Afghanistan and Palestine but from a desire to ensure that European taxpayers' money is well spent. We must have a rigorous monitoring system. The Court of Auditors does a good job, but it is of necessity done after the event. As the money is provided on a continuing basis, some of us feel that we need reassurance that the monitoring is taking place.

Roger Casale: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I will not try to rerun this morning's debate in European Standing Committee B. Suffice it to say that we were debating a report from the Court of Auditors and looking at the way in which the European Union monitors the distribution of its aid. The European Commission should do that monitoring, and I have every confidence that it can do so effectively. Of course, we also need to monitor the monitoring process itself.
	Sometimes we tend to think that Britain is a special case in the European Union, but the point about multilateral organisations is that the relationships between individual member countries and the multilateral agencies must always be the same. How would a body such as the EU fare if any individual member state threatened to withdraw support every time it noticed that something was going wrong?

John Baron: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, the EU agencies involved might not like what happened but the poor of the world might benefit because aid would be more effectively directed by a country that views the relief of poverty, rather than the pursuit of politics, as a priority.

Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman is simply arguing that it would be better to give aid bilaterally than multilaterally. He seems to be saying that Britain is best; that we are best placed to know where money should be spent and how it should be spent; that we can monitor that spending and that we should not bother with multilateral organisations at all. If that is his position, it is not unreasonable, but I do not agree. The points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, are salient. There is a big debate about multilateralism versus bilateralism, but I think that the multilateralists have won. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take us back to bilateralism, he will find it difficult to support the Bill.

John Baron: I am not making a black and white case for bilateral or multilateral aid, but I suggest that if a multilateral agency is clearly failing in its objective to help the poor, a Government should have the right to consider whether to redirect that agency's aid and to do so effectively themselves to help the poor rather than play petty politics with the EU agencies.

Roger Casale: I am extremely grateful for that intervention, which supports my interpretation of what the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said from the Conservative Front Bench, although she denies that when challenged. Through the new clause, the Conservative party wants the ability to repatriate not just the aid, but the power to monitor and control its use. I submit that there is little difference between that and returning to bilateralisma point made by many Members.
	Such a situation would undermine not only British influence in the multilateral bodiesit is so important that our influence and the emphasis on poverty eradication within those bodies remain strongbut also the multilateral approach itself. Full engagement in the multilateral institutions is the way to ensure that multilateral programmes are effective. We should not isolate ourselves or threaten to withdraw from those institutions every time we spot an imperfection. That is why I hope that the Opposition will withdraw the motion.

John Baron: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this important debate. Britain directs about 30 per cent. of its international aid through the EU. I support the new clause because the EU's overseas aid package is dominated by politics rather than concern for the poor, and because the little aid that is directed toward those most in need takes far too long to arrive.
	I hope that reform will take root in the EU, but there is little doubt that political considerations dominate where and how it directs its aid. Why else does Poland receive twice as much aid as Latin America and Asia combined? Why else are the top 10 recipients numbered among eastern Europe, the Balkans and north Africa? In order of aid received, they are: Poland, the Czech Republic, Morocco, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Egypt, Bosnia- Herzegovina, Hungary, ex-Yugoslavia and Russia. Why else do Asia and Latin America combined receive only 12 per cent. of the EU overseas aid budget when a third of the people living in absolute poverty are in India alone?
	This country allows nearly 30 per cent. of its overseas aid budget, which amounts to between 750 million and 800 million, to be directed through the EU. This country should therefore be ashamed of itself. We support an EU policy that, in effect, plays petty politics with the poor of the world, although the Government are aware of the problem.
	The International Development Committee's second report, published in 2000, says:
	EC external assistance policies are clearly determined more by political priorities than poverty alleviation.
	On 9 January, in response to my question, the Prime Minister could not deny that he was aware of the situation. I hope that the House will forgive me for quoting, but in answer to my written question, the Secretary of State was honest enough to say:
	Provisional figures for 2000 show that the percentage of EC development assistance spent in low-income countries continues to fall and is now below 50 per cent. This is unsatisfactory but difficult to change because many member states and large parts of the Commission support the distribution of aid for political rather than developmental purposes.[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 346W.]
	I put it to this Government that we are elected to try to change things for the better. We are not here to accept matters that are unsatisfactory because they are too difficult to change.
	The Government are clearly acquiescing in the shameful policy of politics over poverty. That policy is not only marked by dishonesty and hypocrisy, but is inefficient and ineffective, as the small amount of aid that reaches the genuine poor often arrives very late. According to the International Development Committee's paper entitled The Effectiveness of EC Development Assistance, published in August 2000, the average length of project or programme implementation has continuously increased over the past few years. During the past five years, the average delay in disbursement of committed funds has increased from three to four and half years. The Committee concluded that that sort of backlog was untenable.
	The Committee was told of a number of examples of delays and inefficiencies in disbursement. Population Concern gave the Committee two examples of such delays. The first was a delay of 13 months in the disbursement of funds for four mini-projects in Bolivia and Peru. In the second examplea community-based distribution programme in Karachithe funding situation became so dire that the director of a local NGO in Pakistan took out a personal loan to pay staff salaries, using her residence as collateral. As a result, partner NGOs have requested that Population Concern should seek no financing from the European Community in future.
	Britain has an enviable record, built up over many years and many Governments, when it comes to international aid, and our aid agencies enjoy a similar reputation. Yet the Government seem to be attempting to sacrifice our good name on the altar of the EU overseas aid package.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is keen to lecture this Government, but will he reflect on the position when his party was in government? Does he recall that the proportion of the aid budget going through the EU when the Conservative Government left office was not 30 per cent. but 50 per cent. and rising? The reason it was rising was the Conservative Government cuts to our bilateral aid. Why did not the Conservative Government take the sort of action that the Labour Government are taking, together with the Commission, to improve the quality of British aid, when they had the opportunity to do so?

John Baron: I find Labour Members' tendency to try to cover up

Hugh Bayley: Answer the question.

John Baron: I shall answer the question in my own way. Labour Members attempt to cover up their own failure by referring back to what happened five years previously and to the Conservative Government's record. I do not know about the hon. Gentleman, but I am more interested in the future than in the past. What is clear is that this Government, who are now in a position to do something about this, have done nothing about it in the past five years.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is generous enough to give way again. I simply make the point that these problems were manifest when his party was in government. Indeed, the problems were greater then, as a larger proportion of British aid went through the EU because the overall aid spend was lower, but the Conservative Government did nothing about it. We now have a Labour Government who, together with partners in other member states, are doing something about it. For instance, in May last year we got all the member states represented in the Council of Ministers to sign up to a declaration that poverty relief should be a prime goal of the EU aid programme. The Conservatives never did that, so we are making improvements. Will the hon. Gentleman support the Government in that?

John Baron: Let me respectfully point out to the hon. Gentleman that the position with regard to the EU overseas aid package has been getting gradually worse. In 1987, for example, some 75 per cent. of the EU overseas aid package went to low-income countries. Today, that figure is 50 per cent. In reality, therefore, matters have been getting much worse in recent years. That is why it is important that the House focus its attention on the future rather than the past, and on what we can do to put matters right. There is no point in harking back to what happened five years ago. If anything, the situation is now worse and there is an even greater need for this Government, who have been in power for the past four and a half years, to put things right.
	The Secretary of State has called the EU overseas aid package a disgrace, yet it appears from press reportsI look forward to clarification of this when the Secretary of State addresses the Housethat she has allowed the Government to distribute our Afghanistan reconstruction aid through the EU. That can only encourage the EU.
	Meanwhile, the only target that the Government have published in their White Paper to measure the effectiveness of EU aid is for 2006. We must wait another four years before we can determine whether things are getting better. That is another four years during which money will be wasted, mismanagement will persist and lives will continue to be needlessly lost.
	I believe that one of the main priorities of politics should be the relief of poverty, wherever it exists. I am sure that the vast majority of Members on both sides of the House agree: it is just that we differ as to the means of achieving that objective. When dealing with one of the most powerful tools to alleviate poverty, international aid, the Government allow the EU to play petty politics with the poor of the world. That shameful policy is costing lives today. We need the Government to act now to put that right before too many more lives are needlessly lost. I hope and pray that that happens. I remind the Government that actions speak louder than words. If they refuse to support new clause 3, they will be sending out a clear message that they are not prepared to act.

Hilary Benn: We have had an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) did the House a great service by drawing attention to the decline in the poverty focus of EU development spending, which is a real problem. We are well aware of that. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said, these problems have been going on for some time. They are a product of the priority that has been given to the foreign policy interests of EU member statesthese decisions are taken collectivelyinstead of focusing on poverty. The Government have succeeded in persuading the EU that its development aid programme should have a poverty focus.
	As the Chairman of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), said, the process of reform has begun. We had an extremely good debate this morning in European Standing Committee Bhon. Members will be pleased to hear that I do not propose to repeat my contribution. We talked at some length about the progress that is being made, but we also recognised that there is a lot more to be done.

Norman Lamb: I recognise that the process of reform has started. However, I read in the Library research paper on the Bill that, back in November 2000, the Development Council made its declaration that the principal aim must be the reduction of poverty. It decided that there must be an action plan and constant monitoring of progress through an annual report. Today, I rang up the man in charge, Mr. Eliopoulos, to find out where these annual reports were, and I discovered that there is no annual report for 2000 or 2001. Nothing has yet been published. That does not make me very confident that progress is being made, certainly not on monitoring. Can the Minister tell us what will happen with those reports, and how much progress has been made?

Hilary Benn: My recollection is that there was a first shot at a report that went to the Development Council in November, but the Commission recognised that it was an incomplete and imperfect document. One of the practical steps we are taking is to work with officials in the Commission to find ways in which effective monitoring of the spending of EU aid can be undertaken in future and be reported to future Council meetings. There is not the experience that there might have been. We have something to offer, along with other member states that share our concern about the lack of a poverty focus, and we are interested in practical steps to make progress.

John Baron: Will the Minister give way?

Hilary Benn: Yes I will, but I want to make progress.

John Baron: I have taken the Minister's points on board, but why are we waiting until 2006 to get a progress report on these new policy initiatives and reforms, when we could ask for such a report in a year's time? Why do we not speed things up? Why are we waiting another four years?

Hilary Benn: We are not waiting, because the Government are actively involved in supporting the European Union and the Commission in carrying forward the reform process. I was interested by the remarks of the hon. Member for Banbury, who has been with the Select Committee in Brussels for two days. We will see what the International Development Committee report actually says. The hon. Gentleman recognised that progress is being made. I am however almost the firstmy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be ahead of me in the queueto recognise that the proof will be in the delivery of the change. We think the commitment is there, and the mechanisms have begun to be established; but all of us, in all parts of the House, want to see the change take place.
	I do not know about the reports in the papers to which the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) referred, but I can confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for City of York said. The 200 million in the bilateral contribution to aid for Afghanistan will come from the DFID budget; the EC is making its own contribution from resources for Afghanistan's reconstruction. Only our contribution to the European development fund comes within the purview of the Bill. The EC development aid budget category 4 and pre-accession spendingalso raised in the debateare subject to the European Communities Act 1972.
	We share, unquestioningly, the objective of a greater focus on poverty, but the new clause is both unnecessary and undesirable. It is unnecessary because any assistance provided by the Secretary of State under clause 1 and any contribution made under clause 4 are subject to the requirement that she be satisfied of the likelihood of their contributing to a reduction of poverty. That is so whether she acts herself or through third parties, under clause 4 or clause 8. The Bill therefore provides for the test sought by the hon. Lady.
	As for the undesirability of the new clause, the most important point is that the Secretary of State's power to provide assistance in response to a disaster or other emergency is not constrained by the poverty requirement, and should not be so.

Caroline Spelman: May I put to the Minister the question put to me by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale)? If the Secretary of State was not satisfied that the criteria in clause 1 were being met, would she be prepared to withhold funds on a multilateral basis if they did not accord with the focus?

Hilary Benn: The Secretary of State could do that under the Bill as it is currently worded, although contributions to the European Union involving moneys covered by the European Communities Act 1972 are not subject to its provisions.
	The real difficulty is that the new clause would impose a constraint, in that whenever the Secretary of State gave assistance to third parties in response to a disaster or other emergencyand I am afraid that third parties includes non-governmental organisationsshe would have to be satisfied that the granting of that relief would contribute to the reduction of poverty. I cannot believe that that was the hon. Lady's intention. Such legislation would mean, for instance, that before deciding to authorise the granting of emergency relief following the volcanic eruption in Goma, the Secretary of State would have had to ask herself whether it would contribute to the reduction of poverty. Such deliberation might cause delay, which is of course wholly undesirable.
	There are other examples. In 1999, there was a mudslide in Venezuela. We gave support through third parties to assist humanitarian relief. Some of the mudslide affected wealthier districts of the capital. If the new clause were adopted, it would mean, in effect, that the Secretary of State should not give such support through third parties, because it would be hard to prove that it favoured the reduction of poverty. Another instance is the help that we gave, again through third parties, following the Turkish earthquake. Turkey is not a low-income country.
	Another unintended effect of the new clause is that any aid given to overseas territories by third parties would be subject to the poverty test, which we have specifically excluded from the aid that we give overseas territories under the Bill because other factors need to be taken into account. Again, I am sure that the hon. Lady would not intend the new clause to have this effect, but the overseas territories would be alarmed to hear that any aid or support that they received from third parties, multilateral institutions and international financial institutions was subject to the poverty requirement.
	Finally, as other hon. Members have said, the new clause would create difficulties by constraining the Secretary of State's ability to honour our obligations to pay contributions and subscriptions to multilateral financial institutions.
	We accept the principle. The Bill seeks to give the Secretary of State the necessary power to ensure that she can carry that principle through but, with great respect, the new clause is defective because it would have all those adverse consequences. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Lady will decide not to press it.

Caroline Spelman: It is not until we debate new clauses in this way that we are able to place on the record the principles that we are trying to defend and our good intentions in tabling them, and to dispel any myths about those intentions. I hope that we have succeeded in achieving that.
	I am sure that the Minister is under no illusions. We feel strongly about acting on the warnings following the Select Committee investigations into the way in which multilateral aid is disbursed by, among other third parties, the European Union. It is perhaps worth putting on record the fact that there is no desire to fall into the trap of adversely affecting NGOs, whose work in relation to international development we support.
	The unforeseen consequence exposed by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) may lead to a myth being perpetrated that there is an intention on the part of Conservatives to repatriate our multilateral funding. I hope that that has been scotched effectively, but lest there should be any doubt left, and to make it impossible to place that interpretation on our intentions, and to avoid the unforeseen consequences that the Minister has set out and which arise from humanitarian assistance being referred to under new clause 3, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Hilary Benn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	As has been said many times during the passage of the Bill, it is simple but profoundly important. As the House knows, the reduction of poverty has been the guiding principle of all United Kingdom development assistance since 1997. It is right, therefore, that that principle should be established in legislation.
	One in five of the 6 billion people with whom each of us shares this planet still live in conditions of extreme poverty, with shortened lives, inadequate food, lack of education, health care, clean water and sanitation; 10 million children die each year from malnourishment and preventable illness; 500,000 women die during child birth for lack of simple medical help; 800 million people cannot read or write; and 113 million children of primary age can get no education because they have no classroom and no teacher.
	With the abundance and knowledge that exist in the world, it should shame and disgrace us that such poverty and inequality continue. So long as we fail as a world community to deal with such division and inequality in our increasingly globalised world, we will never achieve the stability that each of us wishes to be able to pass on to the next generation.
	Following the events since 11 September, there is much greater understanding of the force of that argument. As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said on Second Reading, there is a window of opportunity. I agree with that wholeheartedly. It is an opportunity that we must seize.
	The Bill makes poverty reduction the test of what we do, and it ends tied aid. There is now an all-party agreement that tied aid has had its day in the UK, and will not return in any form.
	The Bill ensures that we can provide effective humanitarian assistance and allows us to promote good governance, to support security sector reform, to encourage conflict resolution and prevention, and to support financial management reform. It continues to offer support to our overseas territories.
	I shall be brief, as the Bill has twice been through this House and the other place over the past 12 months. I want to place on record my thanks to all the hon. Members who have contributed to our debateson Second Reading, in Committee and again this evening. Whatever has divided us, it is clear from our discussions that there is a deep concern among hon. Members of all parties for the cause of international development. That has been reflected in the constructive spirit of our discussions at all stages.
	For those reasons, and in that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.

Caroline Spelman: I begin by reaffirming that the Opposition fully support the aims of the Bill. We have supported the Bill through all its stages and I hope that the Minister will accept that, on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, our approach has been constructive and in the spirit of the Bill.
	Certainly, I want to place on record the contribution that has been made by Sir John Vereker, permanent secretary to the Department. Today, he addressed the all-party parliamentary group on overseas development, and that was an unfortunate clash of timing. There have been almost too many goodies on offer today for those hon. Members with a passionate interest in international development. It was not possible to be in two places at once, but I am sure that the Minister will join me in placing on record our thanks for the work that Sir John has done in his career with the Department. To some extent, he played the role of midwife in bringing the Bill into being. We wish him well in retirement, and his successor well in assuming his role.
	The events in Afghanistan provide an interesting backdrop for the debate on the Bill's effectiveness. We must consider what help can be given to Afghanistan, which is now defined, regrettably, as a failed state. I hate the term failed state, but it has caught on. It does not match the spirit that I detected in the Afghan aid workers whom I met on a recent visit to Pakistan. The quality that characterises the Afghan people is their resilience. I have every confidence that, with the right assistance from countries such as ours, Afghanistan will get back on its feet. However, that will require the sort of commitment, focus and contribution that have been at the very heart of our discussions of the Bill.
	Since my visit to Pakistan, I have become even more convinced that international development needs to be high on the political agenda. It is in some ways depressing that it takes a disaster to make people take notice of international development. I told the Secretary of State that one of my aims was to help her keep international development high on the agenda.
	We need to tackle failed states before they fail, and we need to tackle the grinding poverty that brings them to that condition. I hope that the Bill confirms Britain's commitment to tackling global poverty.
	Afghanistan is not the only example facing us. Around the world, poverty is intertwined with the absence of education, decent health care and human rights. It is right that the Department for International Development should tackle poverty. If other countries and institutions adopted similar strategies, the millennium targets for changing things would be much more firmly within our grasp.
	We touched on the role of the EU in our discussion of new clause 3. The EU is the sixth-largest donor of official development assistance, and the second-largest multilateral donor, in the world. However, it has not focused its development effort on the poorest countries. It has only recently announced the need to focus on poverty. We pay tribute to the Secretary of State's role in helping to bring about a shift. The lion's share of the European Union's aid budget still goes to help countries in the Mediterranean, the Balkans, central and eastern Europe and north Africa. I accept that there are huge numbers of relatively poor people in those areas, but if we are serious about tackling global poverty there needs to be a drastic change of focus.
	From Commissioner Patten I gain the impression that the will is there but that it will take a long time and much effort before there will be any major improvements in the budget. I know that the Select Committee on International Development maintains constant scrutiny of the progress of the reform of the European aid budget, but I urge the Secretary of State to keep a firm hold on the powers that the Bill will confer on her to ensure that multilateral giving is used in a way that chimes with the Bill's overall focus and objective.
	In our deliberations in Committee, we did our level best to persuade the Government that more attention needed to be paid to the whole issue of reconstruction. I remember the serious reservations that the Minister expressed on that point. He said that if reconstruction were an explicit objective mentioned in the Bill, it could have the possible consequence of breaking the bank in terms of international development. However, before we leave discussion of the Bill I want to re-register with the Minister the fact that it is part of the new policy of the Conservative party that a successful refugee policy must include a commitment to reconstruction in those countries where, as a result of man-made or humanitarian disaster, the population is faced with problems of the type that are manifest in Afghanistan now. I remain concerned that the Minister's answer to methat such an objective could not be incorporated in the Billleft hanging in mid-air the question about the ultimate responsibility for reconstruction: with which Government Department does that rest? That remained an unanswered question, and in a way it remains unanswered today. It will be a very stern test of joined-up government in future if our fine words on the need to reconstruct Afghanistan are to have real, practical success in that country.
	We have of course had reservations about the Bill. We were worried that many worthy projectsprojects to build up civil society and good governancewould not be eligible for funding under the Bill or in future, and we have tried to have them explicitly mentioned in the Bill, lest those very important areas should suffer future neglect. The Secretary of State and the Minister have both said several times during the Bill's passage that their funding status is secure. I hope that officials in their Department will bear that in mind when allocating funding.
	We have also tried to make the Bill reflect the need for greater accountability. The performance of the Department would inevitably improve if it constantly measured its progress against specific targets and if that performance was more open to the scrutiny of the House. Our amendments may not have been made, but I hope that the Secretary of State has taken their import on board.
	Lastly, if we are truly to tackle global poverty, Government as a whole need to take development seriously. The Government need to re-energise their commitment to reform of the common agricultural policy, which currently holds out considerable economic opportunities for developing nations. When the Department of Trade and Industry is giving consideration to export credit guarantees, it needs to think seriously about development issues. We were very disappointed in that respect when our amendment on sustainable development to the Export Control Bill was not accepted.
	We were disappointed that the Government did not feel able to support our amendment to make the seeking of poverty reduction a focus across all Government Departments, because we believe that, using joined-up government, we could be much more effective with that focus.
	To an extent, our disquiet was vindicated in the example of the Tanzanian air traffic control system which attracted attention in December, when, against the recommendations of the World Bank and others, a British system was sold to Tanzania at what the World Bank regarded as an inappropriately high cost. Most important, what happened to the good intentions to direct resources in countries that we have relieved of debt to health and education rather than defence procurement? In that Tanzanian test, the Government seem to have fallen at the first fence.

Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: No. I am about to conclude my speech, and the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own contribution to this debate.
	I reiterate that we support the Bill, despite our reservations. At the beginning of a new century, it would be a brilliant achievement if this century could be associated with great progress not just for the developed world but for the developing world. I hope that the Bill will enable Britain to play a full part.

Tony Worthington: I agree with what the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who speaks for the Opposition, said earlier about Sir John Vereker. It is a remarkable achievement to have been involved with the Overseas Development Administration in the 1960s, to have been private secretary to three Overseas Development Ministers in the 1970s and then to have held the post of permanent secretary for eight or nine years. It is a fitting tribute to him that today, when he is about to leave, the Bill has made so much progress towards becoming an Act, showing that the Department for International Development has come of age. I wish Sir John well in Bermudahard work, but some one has to do it.
	I had the opportunity to chair a meeting at which Sir John Vereker spoke, and one of the things that he pointed out, which is very important to this debate, was the importance of a Department having a single, uncluttered focus. The Bill is about having such a focusthe reduction of poverty. Of course, the Opposition have sought to clutter, and that is very tempting, but the lack of a single, uncluttered purpose was the reason why aid got into so many difficulties in the pastit was why we got into difficulties, and it was why the European Union got into difficulties as well.
	People kept on trying to add their own focusall very worthy, but it produced the inequities of tied aid. People said, Here's something good to export. Let us find something that is reasonable to use it for in a developing country, whereas the interests of the developing countries and the poorest people in them should have been the driving force.
	The biggest tribute to the Department, the Secretary of State, the Minister and all those of us in this country associated with development is the power of the idea of reducing povertyit is now taking over everywhere in development. One sees that poverty focus at the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and throughout Europe; it is the driving force to reforming the European approach to development.
	In wishing the Bill good speed, I want to mention the Select Committee's latest visit to Europe, which was referred to earlier. Let us not forget that the Select Committee on International Development now exists, and it is not on the margins as it was under those newly wise Conservative Members. Let us also remember that, whereas the department was an aid agency, it is now a development ministry. That is crucial. Whom did we see on that visit to Europe? We saw the Commissioners or senior representatives of three Directorates-General. We saw the foreign affairs people, the development people and the trade people, and they knew where we were coming from. They spoke the same language as us. We saw the representatives of a French Trade Commissioner and it was remarkable that they spoke about a poverty focus andlet us whisper itabout reducing the subsidies made under the common agricultural policy. They were already responsible for the everything but arms initiative.
	Because of this Department and this Secretary of State, we get a single, uncluttered focus on the reduction of poverty everywhere we go. I wish the Bill well.

Jenny Tonge: I congratulate Sir John Vereker on his retirement, but I particularly wish to thank him for being very patient with me when I was a member of the Select Committee. I used to regard him as the senior tutor of the set-up who would always take a little bit longer to explain to a rather difficult Liberal Democrat what she had not understood. He is a great man and I thank him and all the civil servants in the Department for International Development.
	I am delighted that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the Chairman of the Select Committee, is not a member of the Liberal Democrats. However, I remind him that he has the best job in the House of Commons and I wish him luck. I hope that he enjoys his work.
	The Bill is all about sustainable development. The phrase has come to haunt me; I dream about sustainable development. The phrase sums up everything that we want and need. As many Members will know, my obsession when we started to consider the Bill was tied aid. I could not believe that the Bill was dealing with the subject. I was tutored by civil servants and other Members and we gradually established that the phrase sustainable development would eliminate tied aid for ever. I welcome that, and I am beginning to believe it.
	However, sustainable development and what the Bill can achieve depend on other Departments. Let themand especially the Department of Trade and Industry and the Export Credits Guarantee Departmentnot forget about sustainable development. Their activities often conflict with those of the Department for International Development. I shall not cite the famous examples, because I am sure that other Members will.
	On humanitarian aid, I am constantly worriedI hope that the Minister will be able to reassure meabout DFID having to spend its budget on clearing up messes. It had to spend a certain amount of money on humanitarian aid and reconstruction after the Kosovo action. I remember having many battles about that and receiving reassurances from the Secretary of State that much of that money came out of the Treasury's contingency funds.
	I object when the budget that is meant for the poorest people in the world has to clear up messes that we have often created. Therefore, although I appreciate that the humanitarian aid for Afghanistan has come out of DFID's budget, will the money for reconstruction come from its budget or can we twist the Treasury's arm to make it come from its contingency reserves? It is important that we do not always fall back on DFID's budget to fund reconstruction, particularly after military action.
	My other plea is that humanitarian aid should also go towards basic primary education. I gave the example of southern Sudan, which has had 40 years of civil war, with just one short break. Two, coming up to three, generations have not had the opportunity of receiving primary education. A very low percentage of boys, let alone girls, are in education. It is important in chronic civil war situations that we do not just deliver humanitarian aid. We have to look a little more to the future.
	Primary education is a simple thing to deliver. It does not need massive infrastructure. Southern Sudan does not even need schools and classrooms. I saw classes taking place under trees. The children need teachers, slates, chalk and a few books that can be carried off with the people of the village if the war and the raiders suddenly return. The Department should reconsider its policy and include education in humanitarian aid.
	We have heard some fine speeches over the past few weeks, especially since 11 September. We have even been subjected to the Chancellor of the Exchequer doing the most tremendous things on the debt front and saying remarkable things about a global health fund and how we must all pull together. We heard a magnificent speech from the Prime Minister when he was teaching the world to sing at his party conference. I am being genuine. I honestly believe that he is sincere in his attempts to bring the world together and to do something about poverty. I was also subjected to an equally marvellous speech by ex-President Clinton in the Elizabeth II centre across the road.
	Everyone is talking about doing something to tackle the huge poverty gap in the world, but what we are putting into action is a bit lamentable. I congratulate the Government on bringing the proportion of gross national product that is spent on aid up to, I think, 0.33 per cent., but at that rate it will be 50 years before we achieve the UN target of 0.7 per cent. I urge them to move a little faster.
	I think that I heard the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) question whether percentage of GNP, or whatever it is called nowadays, is the appropriate way to measure the aid that is given to developing countries. That has been agreed by the UN and I thought that we all accepted it. I know that the United States of America is beginning to quibble and that it is saying that it is the amount of cash that matters, not the proportion of GNP. I should like the hon. Lady to clarify her position on that.

Caroline Spelman: It is simply that percentages can be misleading. When an economy is growing, it is possible in cash terms to put more money in and at the same time to have a lower percentage of gross domestic product because of the growth in the economy. The trouble with all statistics is that they are used in favour or disfavour of the argument that one is promoting. For that reason, I urge a word of caution. The percentage of GDP has to be considered in conjunction with the underlying trend in the growth of the economy if one is to understand properly what the size of the contribution really means.

Jenny Tonge: Yes, I thought that that was what the hon. Lady said, so I did not misunderstand her, and I thank her for re-emphasising it. However, that moves us away from the age-old principle, which for me is the 11th commandment, of from each according to his means, to each according to their need. The hon. Lady's approach means that it is possible not to bother about the rest of the world; that when an economy is performing badly, we can forget about aid because it does not matter. The percentage of GNP is a basic principle and I am amazed that the Conservatives are abandoning it.

Simon Thomas: I share the hon. Lady's amazement given recent debates in the Chamber about the amount of money that was put into Railtrack as a percentage of GDP and the Conservative party's claims about how well it did compared with the Labour party. Does she agree that although the outstanding commitment dates back to about 1974, it was last reiterated at the Rio conference in 1992 when the Conservatives were in government? What was good enough for that Conservative Government is surely good enough for the Conservative Front Bench now.

Jenny Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. Tonight, we have witnessed, if not the earth moving, certainly a huge shift in Conservative policy on the delivery of aid and, indeed, their concept of raising taxes, which seems to be changing.
	I shall conclude, briefly, with the United States of America. If any country is guilty of not giving a proper proportion of its income, sadly it is the USA. The country currently contributes 0.1 per cent of its income, and is grizzling about it.

Nick Hawkins: The point that the hon. Lady has just made demonstrates her shaky grasp of elementary mathematics and statistics. One cannot measure things simply by percentages because the United States of America, the greatest free democracy in the world, gives a vast amount in cash terms. Saying that that is 0.1 per cent. is a silly argument.

Jenny Tonge: I shall not respond to that ludicrous intervention. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand the concept of progressive taxationI think that that is what it is calledor percentages, which I learned about in primary school, as I am sure many hon. Members did.
	In recent months, the Americans have shown a lack of concern for the rest of the world. They have withdrawn from the Kyoto agreement, have not signed up to the land mines treaty or the International Criminal Court, and are withdrawing from the anti-ballistic missile treaty. We understand that they are unhappy about the target of 0.7 per cent. which has been set by the United Nations. In the two months in which they prosecuted the bombing of Afghanistan, they spent about a quarter of their annual aid budget. It appears to meI hope that I am wrongthat the USA does not give a pretzel for the poor of this planet.

Caroline Spelman: Since the record will be read tomorrow, may I make a factual point? Is the hon. Lady aware that the United States was the largest donor of aid to Afghanistan prior to 11 September?

Jenny Tonge: Yes, I was, but that contribution does not prove anything; we go back to the argument about each giving according to his means. The Americans are not giving in proportion to their country's income; through their policies, they give the appearancethat is how it seems to my constituents and meof not pulling their weight.
	We must put all the fine words that we have heard in recent months into action. For the sake of future generations, we must address the poverty gap world wide and give every child the chance of education and a better life, not just those children who are lucky enough to be born in the west. If we do not do so as a matter of urgency, we shall condemn our children and grandchildren to many more wars, terrorist activity and poverty.

Roger Casale: The Bill is excellent and will come to be seen as a landmark Bill, underpinning the new approach to the delivery of aid and development assistance; it may not be necessary to sing its praises, but we must certainly embrace it at the start of the 21st century. It is not idle to speculate that the ambition of eradicating poverty will come to have the same symbolic and practical significance in this century as the drive to eradicate slavery did in the 19th century, and the drive to eradicate disease did in the last century. We must always remember that the great battles of the past are never won for good; even today, there are worrying signs of the re-emergence of slavery in certain parts of the world. Many murderous diseases that plagued the developing world in the early and mid-20th century are returning as well.
	Each generation sets its sights on a new international agenda. Each tries to set its sights higher. The Bill represents the determination of our generation to act decisively and effectively to eradicate poverty. I believe that that aspiration will form the foundation of our development efforts for many generations to come. It is an aspiration that has grown not only out of the world of politics, although politics will be very important in advancing the cause. The determination to eradicate poverty is an expression of a deeply felt desire for a greater measure of social justice throughout the world. I believe that that desire is felt by the vast majority of decent, thinking people in our country.
	I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of Sir John Vereker, who, rather like William Wilberforce in the 19th century, decided to live in Wimbledon when he had work to do in London and at Westminster, although he has been there for a little longer than Wilberforce decided to stay. We should also pay tribute to the work of church and other faith groups, non-governmental organisations and the growing body of academic work on international development, which has helped to establish the paramount nature of the principle of eradicating poverty, not least through the work of the international philosopher and holder of the Nobel prize for economics, Amartya Sen.
	The Bill will put the United Kingdom in a leading position in relation to international development issues. We will have a much stronger voice in the world on how we need to respond internationally to globalisation and on how globalisation should be made to work for the world's poor.
	Of course, there is still a great deal of work to be done on refining and making more exact the definition of sustainable development. Although an important feature of the Bill is the fact that we are breaking the link between aid and tradethere will no longer be tied aid in that sensemany of us would like to tie across other Departments the concept of sustainable development as we find it in the Bill and in the work of the Department. It could then be a leitmotiv that would help to give substance to our aspiration of ensuring a co-ordinated approach across Departments to trade and development issues, while never losing sight of the importance of tackling social justice as a means of securing stability and peace in areas of conflict around the world.
	One thing has become much clearer as a result of the passage of the Bill: the central importance of a multilateral approach. I hope that, with the confidence that the Bill provides, the Government will continue to build on their work and strengthen our efforts to transform international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
	All of us can take pride in the introduction of the Bill and the new direction that it will give to our efforts to eradicate poverty around the world. I commend the further passage of the Bill to the House. 8.38 pm

Tony Baldry: One of the very few benefits of the last general election was that it meant that the Bill had to be brought before the House for a second time. That provided the opportunity for a number of further speeches, commitments and contributions to be made on international development, which, in the usual course of parliamentary business, is an area of policy that is all too rarely debated on the Floor of the House.
	We all agree that we need a clear poverty focus in international development. The statistics on those who live in poverty are sometimes so large that they are almost impossible to comprehend and the numbers of people involved are almost unimaginable. The United Nations says that 600 million childrenalmost one in four of the world's childrennow live in absolute poverty. Nearly 200 million children under five weigh less than they should, and more than 130 million children of primary school age are not in school. It is difficult to grasp such statistics.
	The wider picture is similarly bleak, with 1.2 billion people living on one US dollar a day. The same number of people lack access to safe drinking water, and 2.4 billion have inadequate access to sanitation.
	Recent events have provided an opportunity. I do not want to make partisan points because those of us who are concerned about international development must try to explain to and impress upon many others that unless we bear down on poverty in the world, many other problems will not be overcome. To reduce poverty, we need clear objectives that everyone can easily understand. I shall therefore bang on for a few minutes about the need to try to meet the 0.7 per cent. target.
	I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow because I was not entirely sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was saying. Of course, I understand the arguments about cash and that if we have an economy that is growing in cash terms, the aid budget can increase. To be fair, I took such lines at the Dispatch Box when I was a junior Minister in the Foreign Office. I was not convinced by them then and I am not convinced now. However, their great weakness is that they constitute a political shorthand that hon. Members understand but does not grab our constituents and make them more willing and determined to support international development.
	There is a danger that our constituents perceive international development in only two ways. First, when a major disaster occurs, such as events in Afghanistan and the recent volcanic eruption, they understand the need for humanitarian relief. Secondly, they hear about international development when stories appear about corruption in development aid budgets. We must try to grab people's attention and engage them so that they understand the need for a sustained campaign to ensure that the whole world gives more to development aid.
	If developing countries fail to reach the 2015 targets, it is largely because developed countries do not give enough. That is not a criticism of the UK, which recently increased its aid budget. We are now the third largest donor according to the Development Assistance Committee statistics. We were fourth. However, with an aid budget of 0.33 per cent. of GDP, we have some way to go.
	The Select Committee visited the institutions of the European Union yesterday. We learned that the Community had had to raid almost every cupboard, nook and cranny to pay for the commitments to Afghanistan that were made in Tokyo. If a similar crisis occurs, the cupboard is bare. If Somalia, Sudan or any other countries that are in difficulty need significant help and support, the money is not available from one of the wealthiest multilateral organisations in the world. We must therefore make a commitment to meet the 0.7 per cent. target.
	The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have recently made speeches about international development. The Prime Minister has spoken about Africa, and he made a speech in India at the new year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke at the Federal Reserve Bank. Hon. Members will have read most if not all those speeches. They are all welcome speeches that seek to establish a new partnership in Africa. In fairness, however, they will be but words if they are not matched by an increase in the financial commitment to international development. Those of us who are concerned about international development need to make as much noise as we can, in this Chamber and elsewhere, to ensure that the needs of the developing world are not forgotten when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and others take into account the various pressures that they have to consider, and divvy up resources.
	We now have an ideal opportunity to persuade colleagues and friends in other wealthy countries that they can afford to make a greater contribution to development aid. I shall read with care in Hansard tomorrow what my hon. Friends have said about the United States. Yes, the United States gives a considerable amount of development aid, in total cash terms. That is not surprising; it is a huge economy, and the wealthiest nation in the world. It is also, however, a fairly parsimonious provider, giving only 0.1 per cent. Now is the time for us collectively to engage with colleagues and friends in Congress, and to persuade them that this is an ideal opportunity for the wealthier nations of the world to engage with developing nations and substantially to increase their funding for international development assistance.
	I am not sure what phrase one could find, other than failing states, to describe certain countries. I appreciate that it is not a reflection on the individuals in those countries, who often have to deal with the consequences of daily grinding poverty. Indeed, huge numbers of people do that with a nobility of spirit that humbles many of us. However, the fact is that in far too many parts of the world, civil society has almost entirely collapsed. It was interesting to ask leading members of the European institutions to name countries in Africa, for example, that could be held up as illustrations of success. There are all too few success stories in Africa at the moment, and all too many tragedies. Many of us have almost completely lost track of the tragedies occurring in countries such as Somalia and Sudan, because they are so horrific, they seem to have been going on for so long, and they are just so grim.
	Recent events have provided us with the opportunity not only to put international development far higher up the international agenda but to say to those who elect us, our fellow citizens, that it is in all our interests that we should invest more in the developing world. We all deal with political shorthand. The target of 0.7 per cent. that was set some 30 years ago is a piece of political shorthand that we can all understand. It is not the most elegant figure0.7 per cent.but it must be possible for hon. Members to find consensus on a line to take on when we could hope, collectively, to meet that target.

Norman Lamb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: No, I want to want to finish this point.
	I am not expecting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he can meet the target in the next spending round, but I would have thought that we could establish consensus that we should aim to meet the target of 0.7 per cent. by a particular date. I hope that we are in agreement that our development policies need to be poverty focused. Well, we have willed the policy. Can we not now, between us, collectively will the means to ensure that it can be achieved?

Simon Thomas: The second book in the Dark Materials trilogy which has just won Philip Pullman the Whitbread prize is The Subtle Knife, and we have just seen the subtle knife exercised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on the arguments of his own Front-Bench colleagues. I hope that his subtle admonition was effective.
	I rise to give the Bill my strong support and that of my colleagues in Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party. I am pleased that the Bill is proceeding through its stages in the House. As hon. Members have said, all parties have supported the Bill, worked to improve it and have tabled amendments to tease out arguments from the Government. On the whole, that has been a beneficial process, twice over.
	I am a little disappointed by the only flaw that I see in the Bill, which is that it does not contain a better definition of sustainable development. During its first passage through the House, I moved an amendment to use the Brundtland definition. At that time, the Government said that there are too many definitions, it is hard to keep track of them all and each one has its failings as well as its advantages, so we should stick with what we have got.
	Labour Members and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) have talked about the importance of sustainable development as a tool for reducing poverty. However, I am still concerned that we do not have a fuller definition of sustainable development. There is talk of the goal of sustainable development being rolled out to all Departments, and I am worried that we will have too many different definitions working in too many different ways.
	I predict that sustainable development will be included in future Bills, not only those on international development but those relating to work within the United Kingdom. I predict that several different definitions will be used, and we will have to return to the matter in a few years and draft a composite definition for the Government to use. Apart from that the Bill is excellent and it will provide a framework for the Secretary of State and her Ministers to achieve poverty reduction targets.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) that amendments tabled by Conservative Members had one particular failing. They were good amendments in the sense that they addressed issues of the day. Those are issues that should be addressed and on which the Executive should be challenged. However, they should not be included in the Bill because it sets up a framework for robust work towards poverty reduction over 10 or 15 years. Lumbering ourselves with issues specifically to do with Burma, Zimbabwe or anywhere else would have proved somewhat restrictive.
	It is the task of all hon. Members, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, to hold the Government to account. They have said that they will achieve poverty reduction through sustainable development, that the Bill will get rid of tied aid and that they will work towards good governance. It is our job to hold the Government to account on the aims that they have set themselves in debates on the Bill.
	We must now move on to the next stage of international development, which, as the hon. Member for Banbury said, is to achieve cross-party consensus on reaching a contribution target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP. I was hoping that we would achieve that consensus, although there may be a question mark hanging over those on the Conservative Front Bench. Certainly when I questioned the Secretary of State at the last International Development Question Time, she seemed to be open to the idea that there should be a timetable and that it is no longer good enough to have an open-ended commitment to an international treaty obligation that we have never fulfilled.
	Of course, I accept the argument that richer countries pay more even if they pay a smaller proportion of their GDP. One of the countries that I am aware has reached its target of 0.7 per cent. is Luxembourg, and I am sure that it gives less than we do in our 0.33 per cent. of GDP. Nevertheless, the people of Luxembourg understand that they, as part of the rich west, are sharing a proportion of their wealth with developing countries. We have to aspire to be like Luxembourg. It is an interesting task for us to aspire to be like the smallest country in the European Union. I hope, in good time, that Wales will join Luxembourg as one of the smaller members of the EU. We must move forward to fulfil that obligation and reach that target. That is the only blot on the Government's copy book in this regard and they have done excellent work on debt reduction, which is another issue altogether.
	The Bill represents the first genuine assessment of international development aid for about 20 years and it may provide a robust framework that lasts another 20, although I hope that the fact that this is our second attempt to legislate does not mean that it must last 40.
	I leave the Minister with this thought: the proposal on annual reports was rejected, but we have a better framework for international development aid debates and that should enable us to achieve a better understanding of the progress that the Government are making towards the international poverty reduction targets.
	Let there be instituted in the House of Commons an annual debate so that we can hold the Government to account, feed in our ideas and study practice elsewhere. As much as possible, we must work on the basis of cross-party consensus.

Hugh Bayley: In order to be brief, I shall not repeat any arguments made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about the figure of 0.7 per cent. I simply say that Labour Members share his view that it would be helpful to have a timetable against which to measure the Government's aspiration to reach the target. They are moving in the right direction, but we need more clarity as to the time scale. That view was expressed by the Select Committee, of which I am a member, and we eagerly await the Secretary of State's response. We wish her good luck in her discussions with other Ministers, who obviously need to be consulted about the matter.
	It is music to my ears to hear such a clear cross-party consensus on the importance of a poverty focus in aid. Of course, that consensus did not always exist. When I introduced a Bill to amend the Conservatives' Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 and put a poverty focus in our aid programme for the first time, I did not receive the wholehearted support of all Members.
	It was the father of my hon. Friend the Minister who said that when new proposals are made they are usually ignoredthey were in my caseand then derided. However, if the proposals are good, the mood changes over time. Eventually, everybody says they agreed all along and that they are a good idea.
	I simply say well done to the Secretary of State, her Department and her Government colleagues. It is terrific that the legislation is before the House and I hope that it reaches the statute book shortly. Of course, legislation is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself. It will provide a clearer focus on the need for our Government to support global efforts to work to, and reach, the vital anti-poverty international development targets by 2015.
	I wish the Government good luck in their endeavours to ensure that those crucial goals are attained and good luck in their negotiations with our allies and friends in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Union. They, too, must make substantial contributions if the targets are to be met.

Norman Lamb: Like other Members, I begin by making clear my strong support for the Bill. As a new Member of the House, I was delighted to debate it while serving on my first Standing Committee. Its objectives are laudable and it rightly has at its heart the concept of poverty reduction and the need for sustainable development. However, I must direct my brief comments to three areas in which, if we are not careful, its objectives could be undermined. I very much hope that they will not be, but we must be alert to such matters.
	First, I want to deal with the adequacy of the total spend. I absolutely endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). He made a somewhat diplomatic criticism of his Front Benchers and stressed the need to focus on the 0.7 per cent. target, which was set by the United Nations Assembly back in 1970. It was that we would achieve a 0.7 per cent. of GNP rate of spend on aid by the middle of that decade. International progress since then has been lamentable, and in this country the percentageI agree that we must focus on the percentageof GNP that the Conservative Government spent on development assistance between 1979 and 1997 halved.
	Since then, there has been an improvement, but even at the rate of improvement that we have seen, it would take us 30 to 40 years to achieve the 0.7 per cent. target. I would like the Minister to give some indication of the timescale that he envisages; I would suggest 10 years to achieve that target. I would also like to hear Conservative Front-Bench Members make a recommitment to the target because, listening to them tonight, I was concerned that they might have abandoned any drive towards a 0.7 per cent. target and that the total cash spend by a particular country was more important.
	It seems self-evident that 0.7 per cent. for Luxembourg or the UK is less than 0.7 per cent. for the United States, which is the world's largest economy. We are talking about the same size slice of cake, irrespective of the size of the cake.
	Thus the first issue is the adequacy of the spend. It is essential that the international community achieve a more equitable sharing out of the world's resources, not solely because it is a moral imperative but because it is in our collective interest to do so. The hon. Member for Banbury was again correct in saying that it is incumbent on us all to convince others that other objectives depend on our eradicating poverty. We live in a highly interdependent world, and we cannot have peace and security in our own land in a world full of trouble. We must build peace and security across the globe, and we cannot achieve that if extremists can prey on desperation caused by poverty.
	The second issue that I wanted to deal with was that of consistency of Government policy. I refer in particular to the case of the Tanzanian air traffic control system. That country spent 28 million on a system which the World Bank says is redundant and inappropriate. The World Bank reckons that Tanzania could buy an appropriate system for about 7 million. Tanzania has eight military aircraft

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may see the link between what he is saying and the Bill, but it is not yet evident to the House. On Third Reading of a Bill, his remarks must be within the context of that Bill.

Norman Lamb: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I am making is that there must be consistency across Departments. At the time of the sale to Tanzania, there was talk of the possibility of amending the export control legislation to achieve the same test of sustainable development and reduction of poverty that is at the core of this Bill. Will the Minister confirm that that will happen so that we have consistency across Departments, driving at the same objective of poverty reduction?
	The third issue concerns the fact that 25 per cent. of the Department's aid expenditure is channelled through the EU. There is genuine concern that the EU is not yet performing as it should in channelling its aid into the reduction of poverty. All the trends have been in the wrong direction. A Library research paper says that in 197074 30 of the top recipients of EU aid were Africa-Caribbean-Pacific region countries, but by 199697 only two of them were in the top 15. That is a move entirely in the wrong direction. In 197074, two of the top 15 recipients were the Asian countries India and Bangladesh, but their position slipped, and by 199798 there were no Asian recipient countries in the top 15.
	It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that their total spend on development assistance goes into the reduction of poverty and sustainable development. In an earlier intervention, I expressed concern that monitoring of the EU's aid budget had not started particularly auspiciously. The annual reports that were promised in 2000 have not yet appeared. The Government must demand change in the EU so as to ensure that the money spent on aid through the EU satisfies the same test as the Bill lays down for the rest of our aid.
	The Bill is an excellent start in directing our spending in the right direction, but it is not enough on its own. There must also be an increase of resources going to the developing world. We must aim to achieve the 0.7 per cent. target within 10 years. There must be consistency across Departments, and we must ensure that all our aid meets that test.

Andrew Rosindell: I shall not detain the House for too long, as we have covered an enormous amount today and in previous stages of the Bill. It has been an education for me, as a new Member of Parliament. The Standing Committee was the first on which I have served, and it has been impressive to observe the passage of the Bill through Parliament. The consensus that we have reached in the House is a rarity.
	The issue of overseas development and poverty reduction should unite all hon. Members, from whatever side of the House, because in this country we are privileged to be in a society in which poverty does not affect too many people. Of course we have poverty in some areas, but deprivation exists in countries across the world, where people are in genuine need and do not have the advantages that we take for granted. All hon. Members should work together to ensure that we get the best results for poor people in the third world who need help from countries such as the United Kingdom.
	The administration of overseas aid must be efficient. We must be sure that the money we spend in this area is used to best effect. We must ensure that it is monitored. It is disappointing that the proposal of an annual report has not been accepted. It is also disappointing that once again we are using the European Union as a method of distributing overseas aid. The EU's record in that area is not particularly proud. I shall not give further examples, as some have already been given, and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) referred to the problem a few moments ago.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, there is nothing wrong with the idea of third party organisations distributing money, but we want to see that it is being used properly and not going to the wrong areas, and we do not want to see the huge delays caused by its being administered from Brussels.
	A small point which, as the Minister knows, I have raised at earlier stages relates to the inclusion of the British overseas territories. I believe that, being British, they should be included in other legislation; they should not be lumped together and treated as if they were foreign territories in relation to international aid.
	I am delighted to note that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) agrees with me. Sadly, as she will know, that is one of only a few matters on which we agree. The views that she expressed earlier on the United States concerned me greatly. The United States does a phenomenal amount of work in defending freedom, helping impoverished countries and assisting countries that lack democracy and are threatened by various interests. It is always the first nation to help bring about democracy, freedom and the alleviation of poverty, and we must stand by it.
	I do not think that the debate is assisted by attacks on our ally, the United States. I believe that we need to work with the United States, and with all countries that want to contribute to the eradication of global poverty. Sidelining and criticising the United States does not help us to achieve our ultimate objective.

Nick Hawkins: With one exception, contributions to the debate have been of high quality. There has been a good deal of common ground between the parties. The UnderSecretary of State spoke briefly but skilfully, as always, about the overall concept of the Bill. He also stressed a fact that concerns hon. Members throughout the House: at the beginning of a new century and a new millennium, some 800 million people still cannot read or write, and 113 million children can obtain no education.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) expressed our reservations about the Bill, and listed the ways in which we feel that it could have been improved. She rightly paid tribute to the retiring permanent secretary Sir John Vereker, and described what she had seen of the resilience of Afghan aid workers during her recent visit to Pakistan. She spoke of the need to go on tackling global poverty, and emphasised that Conservative Members had wanted specific provision for funds for good-governance projects in the Bill.
	My hon. Friend also pointed out that we felt the Government had fallen at the first hurdle recently, a point picked up by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), speaking with great experience of the subject, echoed the tributes to Sir John Vereker. I was slightly concerned when at one stage he appeared to praise without reservation the so-called everything but arms initiative. I attended a number of meetings just before the end of the last Parliament where many other Labour Membersled by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the former Chairman of the Select Committee, Bowen Wells, to whose work I pay tributewere worried about some of the adverse effects of that initiative, especially its impact in the Caribbean and knock-on results in the United Kingdom.
	The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) spoke about his strong commitment to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), from his great experience as the current Chairman of the Select Committee, spoke of his worries about the collapse of civil society and the grim parts of the world, and expressed his views on the vexed question of percentages.
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) spoke about his support for the Brundtland definition of sustainable development, and praised the underlying spirit of some of the Conservative amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden moved in Committee, and some of the new clauses that were tabled for tonight's debate.
	The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) claimed credit for the focus on poverty concept, and said that he was delighted that it had moved from something that he put forward as a Back Bencher in his first Parliament to being part of the Bill. The hon. Member for North Norfolk went back to the question of percentages. Although he said that the percentage was moving in the right direction, he will not have forgotten that for the first three years under the present Government, it went down. He talked about the export guarantee amendment. He may have forgotten that that was a Conservative amendment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) rightly defended the United States' role in protecting freedom and democracy, not least in aid. He expressed his concerns, which I share, about the delivery of aid, and about the way in which British overseas territories such as Gibraltar, on which he and I have great concerns, particularly at the moment, should be included properly in future legislation.
	It has been a good-natured Third Reading debate, with one exception, as I said. I cannot finish without drawing attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who contradicted the Liberal Democrat spokesman on foreign affairs in the debate on Zimbabwe, was comprehensively demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury.
	The hon. Lady said a couple of things with which I agreed. She described herself as a difficult Liberal Democrat who needed a lot of tutoring. She said that she dreams about sustainable development, and that she needed a lot of education from the retiring permanent secretary and his civil servants about humanitarian issues. She wished my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury well in his difficult work chairing the Select Committee, but venting her anti-American spleen and prejudice was not worthy of her, her party or this debate.

Hilary Benn: With the leave of the House, I would like to respond to the debate.
	I thank all hon. Members for their contributions on Report, on Third Reading, in Committee and on Second Reading, and Members who were in the House when the Bill was considered last year for their involvement. I take this opportunity to thank officials from the Department for International Development and other Government Departments, without whom we would not be sitting here debating this Bill.
	Hon. Members have kindly made favourable comments about the reputation of the Department. That is simply a reflection of the quality of the people who work in it. We are extremely fortunate. As a still relatively new Minister, I have been universally impressed by the quality, commitment and passion of the staff whom I have met during my time at the Department.
	I have one regret about this evening's debate: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is not able to be with us because of her presence in Tokyo for the Afghanistan reconstruction conference. No one has done more to bring the Bill about than her. No one is better qualified by her record, commitment and passion to take forward its principles. I am sure that the whole House wishes her well in that task.
	I shall respond briefly to some of the specific points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has made that task a lot easier with his usual brilliant and succinct summing up of the contributions that we heard.
	The question of EU aid was covered in the very good discussion on new clause 3. I shall not repeat what was said, but we reached a measure of consensus about what the Government are trying to achieve.
	The question of the 0.7 per cent. target was raised by the hon. Members for Banbury (Tony Baldry), for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), among others. As I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have said, the question is good and pertinent, and the House will not be entirely surprised that, on this happy occasion, I am fortunately not able to give an answer about the timetable. However, that is a debate that we need to have, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will listen with interest to the points that have been made.
	The hon. Members for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), for Ceredigion and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) spoke about export control. Sustainable development is now an equal criterion among others, and the fact that we even have a debate about how to interpret that in relation to particular decisions shows how far we have moved. Twenty-five years ago, it would not have occurred to Members of Parliament to debate the merits of sustainable developmentas opposed to Britain's interestsas a consideration in deciding such matters. The fact that the House is united in opposition to the concept of tied aid is a recognition of the shift that has take place over a generation.
	On reconstruction, Afghanistan is the test of the moment, and the hon. Member for Meriden was right to draw attention to it. The money that we have committed this week is an expression of our commitment to that country's reconstruction, and shows clearly that the international community meant the promise that it made to the people of Afghanistan that it would not walk away from them, given all the pain and suffering that they had experienced. That point was ably supported by the contributions from my hon. Friend the Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) and for City of York (Hugh Bayley). The latter told the House about his previous efforts to get some of the principles contained in the Bill on the statute book.
	The House united on four matters on Third Reading. It united in sending its best wishes to Sir John Vereker, in expressing its commitment to the reduction of poverty, in recognising the influence that events in Afghanistan have had on our awareness of why it is more necessary now than ever to act to reduce poverty, and in supporting the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for City of York said that, in the end, the Bill was just a means to an end, and he was right. It is what we do with the Bill that matters. We now have a rare and real opportunity to make a difference. It is the responsibility of each and every one of us to make sure that we take it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

National Heritage Bill [Lords] [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified

Kim Howells: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Heritage Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department under or by virtue of the Act; and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.
	The motion concerns the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). The Government have been content to support the Bill, as its provisions closely mirror the relevant provisions of the my Department's Culture and Recreation Bill, which was lost with the announcement of the general election. This support was ably expressed during the Bill's Second Reading on 18 January, when the House was content for the Bill to move into Committee. The Bill has already been considered thoroughly in another place.
	The purpose of the Bill is to broaden the powers of English Heritage in two ways. It will allow English Heritage to trade in overseas countries, and to become involved in underwater archaeology in territorial waters adjacent to England.
	The governing legislation for English Heritage at present precludes both activities, but it is widely expected that they would be beneficial. The Bill would also allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to direct English Heritage to carry out certain administrative functions in relation to underwater archaeology, which at present that Department has to carry out itself. The Bill therefore gives new powers to English Heritage, which of course have financial implicationshence the money resolution.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that this is a useful piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Minister and the Government for bringing forward the money resolution. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who so agreeably and successfully moved the Bill's Second Reading on Friday 18 January. I also pay tribute to Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, who revived the Bill and, I am sure that the Minister would agree, put it into an even friendlier form than that which was lost at the time of the general election.
	I entirely support the Bill's objectives, personally and on behalf of the official Opposition. The Minister refrained from using the expression that it extends English Heritage's responsibilities to wrecks, and perhaps at this time of the evening I should also avoid any reference to wrecks, but I welcome English Heritage's new powers and the streamlining and extension of its activities.
	I have one or two questions for the Minister, relating to the financial implications of the Bill. First, what expenditure will be incurred as a result of the financial provisions? Secondly, can the hon. Gentleman assure the House tonight that, as the Bill simply reflects to a large extent administrative changes that have already taken place, the level of expenditure will be very small? I do not know whether he can share a figure with the House tonight, but if so that would be most welcome.

Kim Howells: We are proposing to transfer the full current budget of 340,000 for these activities to English Heritage.

Anne McIntosh: That answer is extremely helpful. May any potential savings be envisaged in future resulting from the Bill's provisions? Can the hon. Gentleman explain what the day-to-day running costs will be, and whether there will be any additional running costs under the new arrangements envisaged by the Bill? I await the hon. Gentleman's reply with great anticipation.
	I thank the Government once again for bringing the money resolution before the House, enabling us to ensure a safe passage for the Bill.

Kim Howells: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond.
	The transfer of the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites secretariat function and the management of the archaeological diving contractwhich is, I am told, currently held by the archaeological diving unit at St. Andrews universityto English Heritage are agreed recommendations arising from the departmental spending review. It was a key plank of the spending review findings that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should not be involved in such executive functions. We are proposing to transfer the full current budget of 340,000 for those activities to English Heritage.
	English Heritage considers that those functions should cost 450,000 to carry out. We disagree. When DCMS last let the diving services contract, it made efficiency savings by transferring the cost of the vehicles and vessels to the contractor, in line with current best practice, and English Heritage should also be able to benefit from those efficiency savings. We cannot predict how much the contract will cost when it is re-tendered, and there may indeed, as the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said, be scope for more efficiency savings, but what those are exactly I certainly would not be able to tell her now.
	Question put and agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on motions 6 and 7.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Postal Services

That the draft Postal Services Act 2000 (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) (Amendment) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 19th July 2001, be approved.
	That the draft Postal Services Act 2000 (Modification of Section 7) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 19th December 2001, be approved.[Dan Norris.]
	Question agreed to.

Ministers of the Crown

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the draft Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dissolution) Order 2002 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 8th January.[Dan Norris.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	  
	Mersey Tunnel

Ben Chapman: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the readers of the Liverpool Echo and the Wirral News, members of the Wirral chamber of commerce and many residents of Merseyside.
	The petition declares that
	The Mersey Tunnels Bill will break the commitment to the people of Merseyside that surplus revenue will be used to accelerate the repayment of debt and will allow Merseytravel to increase tolls in line with inflation; that this could lead to unacceptable increases in toll charges, damaging the Merseyside economy and that 415 readers of the Liverpool Echo and 523 readers of the Wirral News have signed statements stating that they oppose the Mersey Tunnels Bill.
	The residents of Merseyside declare also that Merseytravel have undertaken to use the operational surpluses from the Mersey Tunnels to reduce the levels of debt, leading to subsequent reductions in Tunnel tolls; but that Merseytravel currently propose to use surplus toll revenue to subsidise other forms of transport, while automatically increasing tolls annually in line with inflation.
	The residents therefore request that the House of Commons reject the Mersey Tunnels Bill.
	To lie upon the Table.

BED BLOCKING (BEDFORDSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Dan Norris.]

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the House for the chance to raise the issue of bed blocking, which affects my constituentsindeed, it affects the whole county of Bedfordshire. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), is to reply to the debate.
	Bed blocking is not a new issue, nor is it in any way localised to my constituents. However, it is particularly acute in North-East Bedfordshire, for a combination of reasons. Bedfordshire county council suffers, as do all local authorities at the moment, from inadequate funding for its social services, which limits its capacity to provide support to patients on leaving hospital. That is compounded by severe problems in the care home sector, where homes are closing and beds are being lost.
	Bedfordshire health authority is one of the poorest in the country, and the current pressures are therefore exaggerated in their effect, as no reserves are left to cover the problem. To cap it all, Bedfordshire is a growing county, with more people coming to live in new developments, as requested by the Government in their targets for homes. If services are inadequate now, what will they be like in a decade's time, when our population of over-75-year-olds is 20 per cent. higher? That is the synopsis of the problem.
	Bedford hospital's delayed discharge figures for the past year tell the story. In the third quarter of 2000, there were 53 delayed discharges. That figure rose steadily through the year188 in the next quarter, 232 the next and 223 the nextuntil by the third quarter of 2001 the figure was 304, a sixfold increase. The average length of stay of a bed-blocking patient is between four and 14 days. Unsurprisingly, the impact of bed blocking produces a shortage of beds, or no beds. No beds results in cancelled operations and delays in treatment for those who are long suffering and those with chronic illnesses. I was first alerted to that problem by the constituents' cases about which I heard in my advice centres during the autumn. When I queried the local NHS trust about the reason why operations were cancelled, the issue of bed blocking seemed all too often to loom as an answer.
	In the third quarter of 2000, there were 107 same-day cancelled operations in Bedford hospital, of which 64 were the result of there being no beds. By the third quarter of 2001, that figure had risen to 285, of which 199 were the result of there being no beds. Waiting time targets at the hospital climbed inexorably. Patients were placed in inappropriate wardsmedical cases in surgical wards, for example. They stayed in the accident and emergency department for the first time and 12-hour trolley waits began to be recorded.
	Just before Christmas the decision was taken to close a theatre as there was no point in the hospital's keeping it open. In one week, none of the non-emergency elective surgery could take place in the other theatres. In plain commonsense terms, bed blocking means that, on any one day, between one and two wards are full of people who should not be there.
	All that takes place to the great distress of staff and management, who work very hard in difficult conditions and under considerable public scrutiny. Bedford hospital has not had an easy year and criticism is keenly felt by all levels of staff, as I found out when I dropped in at Christmas to speak to the people there. No one wants to address the difficulties of the hospital more than all those who work there, and they deserve praise for the mountain of excellent work that they do. I shall come to the hospital's and the trust's funding shortly, but I wish the new chief executive, Andrew Reed, and the new NHS trust chair, Helen Nellis, very well in their new roles.
	The causes of bed blocking are varied. Some delays are inevitable as patients and families have good reason for a short delay as their loved ones re-adjust to coming out of hospital. Perhaps not all such cases should be designated as delays. An illness may mean that a family has to make new domestic arrangements for someone and, if they cannot be made overnight, some leeway is sensible. Perhaps a redesignation of the term delayed discharge might be sensible in such cases. However, when patients and families are unreasonableI am told that there is evidence that some arethey should understand the impact of their actions in keeping a bed blocked.
	Delays that may be put down to purely resource-based reasonssuch as delay in assessment, delay in funding a package, delay in awaiting a domiciliary placement, delay in awaiting a nursing or residential care packageshow a significant increase, from 24 in the third quarter of 2000 to 116 in the third quarter of 2001. The figure is more than four times greater.
	Other categories listed as other reasons or family reasons, which are both growing, also include cases where awaiting medical or social services or other public service support is a factor. They include waiting for an occupational therapist's assessment, or for a physiotherapist, or for adaptations to property.
	However, disentangling actual figures and deciding which categories relate to which public service or to other reasons is not the main point of my debate. I wish to illustrate beyond question the significant increase in the bed blocking to which, following discussion with the NHS trust and social services, increased support and resources would be an answer. Both the NHS trust and social services in Bedfordshire county council speak warmly of their relationship with each other, and their shared responsibility for such matters is plainly one that they each welcome.
	Social services funding in Bedfordshire was the subject of a debate in the House just before the Christmas recess opened by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). The deficiency in social services funding nationally has been the subject of surveys of directors of social services throughout the country in the past year. We are all aware that it appears to be a major problem for all of them. This year Bedfordshire will spend nearly 15 per cent. above its standard spending assessment. Next year's package hardly changes the overall picture, and there is a projected shortfall of 7 million. Without repeating everything that my hon. Friend said in the debate to which I have referred, I have to say that the shortfall is placing a dagger at the heart of services in the county and giving the county council, so well led by Philip Hendrie and his colleagues, an impossible job with its budget.
	The problem of social services funding in Bedfordshire is compounded by pressures in the care home sector, a destination for 76 of the 304 who, in the last quarter of 2001, were waiting unnecessarily in hospital beds. Inadequate funding over a number of years meant that Bedfordshire county council could afford no increase in fees paid to care homes in the independent sector. A recent district auditors' report confirms the pressures on the sector. Five homes have closed in the past year. The independent care home owners in the countyI am grateful for the assistance that I have received from Gordon Ward and Michael Glynn in providing figures for metell me that 10 more are under severe pressure this year, so perhaps a further 300 beds will go.
	Care home owners' costs are conditioned by the market, but they are also coping with new Government pressures, from minimum wage legislation and health and safety regulations to the Care Standards Act 2000, for which they must paymore cost and more regulation, but no more money. Their negotiations with the county council are blighted by those constraints on finance. Where would our county be without the very best quality of care that independent care homes can provide?
	The national health service in the area was also the subject of a debate shortly before Christmas, opened by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber. Its poor budget means that it cannot afford to apply more of its resources to its share in dealing with the problem, which it recognises is a joint responsibility. For example, the Bedford Hospital NHS trust funds 30 places in care homes because the local authority cannot afford to pick up the Bill.
	To further demonstrate the parlous state of local NHS trust finance, a recent parliamentary answer revealed a 438 per cent. increase in the percentage of patients waiting more than 12 months for treatment since 1997. I say that to illustrate that I am discussing not a mid-winter local crisis, but a sustained deficiency now working corrosively right through the system. Bedfordshire health authority began 2001-02 some 17 million below target. Next year, despite what seems a generous settlementthe highest in the regionit will remain resolutely at the bottom of the funding scale. By comparison with our target share of the NHS budget, Bedfordshire's 2002-03 allocation is some 4 per cent. less than we ought to receive, equivalent to an 18.5 million gap.
	Those figures will not be unfamiliar to the Minister, coming as they do from a letter to Lord Hunt of Kings Heath from Lesley Watts, the acting chair of Bedfordshire health authority. She points out that this small county, despite all the odds, has worked very hard to provide good-quality services, but that for the first time serious deficits are being reported by trusts that have always achieved their financial duties. Trusts in Bedfordshire are some of the lowest-cost providers in the country. Lesley Watts also points out that although the allocations announced for 200102 included broad percentages for increased figures for the subsequent two years, the recent allocations announced for 200203 make no mention of growth in future years.
	What is to be done? As far as local authority social services are concerned, the additional funds announced late last year are a recognition by Government of both the problem and the solution. An extra 447,000 was announced until April 2002, and I believe that there is a figure double that for the whole of next year. The money is being well spent on buying in extra services for making assessments, on extra places in residential and nursing homes and on some limited recruiting, but the problem is that the money is time limited for 18 months.
	As I hope I have illustrated to the Minister, the problem is not short term. If there is no guarantee of continued funding to meet the needs, few long-term commitments can be made, because the council dare not take on more cost if it is going to lead to increased budgetary pressure. That is bound to make it more cautious, and solutions to the problems will not be implemented. Future local government settlements must address that social services differential. It is now too serious, both in Bedfordshire and nationwide, to be left alone.
	The NHS must have an uplift in funding commensurate with its needs in Bedfordshire. There is definitely an answer to that. According to the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, some 700 million of NHS money was unspent last year. This is the Minister's moment. This is the time when she can, with her natural compassion and the force of argument, seize the Dispatch Box and say, I've got some money for you. That unspent NHS money can come to a place where it will be well used; the underfunding of Bedford hospital historically and all the pressures exerted on it will be a thing of the past when the hon. Lady makes that declarationif not now, then in two or three minutes' time in her reply. I am making a serious point: it is difficult to defend tight budgeting if 700 million is unspent.
	A plea coming from the NHS and Roger Gwynne Jones, the executive member of the council responsible for the social services portfolio, is, No more initiatives. They want extra uplift in core funding, instead of so much new money being tied into new initiatives that always have to be bidden for, tying up money, entailing bureaucracy and demonstrating lack of trust in local discretion which, I am afraid, is becoming the Government's hallmark. Will the Government try to give an uplift in funding, as opposed to depending on the public sector bidding for new initiatives, which does not allow it discretion and means travelling along the Government's tramlines?
	Finally, I shall set the issue in the context of a growing Bedfordshire population, the major point that I want to drive home to the Minister. I have outlined the issues facing hospitals, and could do so for every public service in Bedfordshire, a small, historically prosperous and independent county which has tended not to come top of the pile when looking for support. It has not wished to do so because its independence is matched by its people's pride and their ability to cope and support one another.
	Bedfordshire is no longer in charge of its own growth and development; in future, it will march to the beat of the Whitehall drum, as plans for new building on greenfield and brownfield sites alike have an impact. What does that mean for population growth? I have some illustrative figures from the county. In 1996, Bedfordshire's population was 367,300; the over-65 population was 49,700; and the over-75 population, 21,800. In 2001, the population was 385,800; the over-65 population was 53,400; and the over-75 population, 24,400. In less than a decade, in 2011, the total population will be 419,000; the over-65 population will be 64,200; and the over-75 population will be 28,800. According to my calculations, that is roughly a 10 per cent. increase in the general population now, but a 20 per cent. increase in the over-75 population.
	Judging from the attitude and words of all the county's Members of Parliament, it is not content to play catch-up any longer. We are putting down a marker, and I should be grateful if the Minister, in the comprehensive spending review, takes into account the pressures of population growth in a county such as ours. I do not mean taking account of them in the figures, which look good and will no doubt look good when the hon. Lady repeats them tonight, but in meaningful changes on the ground in public services. It is already difficult to work in those services in Bedfordshire but, with the population growth that I have suggested, it will be more difficult in a decade. Given both bed blocking, the subject of tonight's debate, and the over-75 population increase, how will those services cope?
	I am grateful for the time and the attention that the House and the hon. Lady have given me. The hon. Lady understands the problems well; I should be grateful if she would explain her understanding of the symptomatic problems of a growing county and reassure my constituents and me that she will apply my suggestions to other public services so that the problems that my county faces will not be experienced in future, and so that hope can be given to the hard-pressed and hard-working people in the public services and those whom they serve.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on securing a debate on this important matter. I welcome his concern to see high-quality social and health care being provided for his constituents. That is clearly what the Government seek and we are investing in and modernising the services in order to provide it. I shall try to respond to all his concerns.
	The hon. Gentleman raised particular concerns about delayed discharges in Bedfordshire. I am advised that the percentage rate of delayed discharges in Bedfordshire has, in general, compared relatively favourably with those of other health authorities in the region. For example, in September, the rate fell below 3 per cent. However, there have been rising rates more recently, with figures closer to 6 or 7 per cent. Since the beginning of the new year, the position on delayed discharges throughout Bedfordshire and at Bedford hospital has improved considerably, thanks to the efforts of health and social services. I am informed that the latest figures show a total of 41 blocked beds, which is down from 65 in the first week of January and leaves Bedfordshire on track to reduce delayed discharges to its target of 23 beds by the end of March.
	The hon. Gentleman made a series of points about the NHS, social services, local capacity and local funding. In trying to address them, I shall begin with some of the issues about resources. Of course, he will be aware that tackling bed blocking is not merely about resources, but about having the right systems in place to ensure that the resources that are available are best spent. As he will know, Bedfordshire health authority, like health authorities throughout the country, has benefited from substantial real increases in investment in the past few years. Last year, it received a real increase of 7.1 per cent. and this year, it received a real increase of 6.3 per cent. Next year it will receive a real increase of 7.8 per cent.a cash increase of 10.5 per cent. and the fourth largest in the country. He will also be aware that, nationally, increases are currently averaging more than 6 per cent. in real terms, compared with an historic average of about 3 per cent. Those increases put Bedfordshire in a much better position to respond to winter pressures.
	I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman made about the increasing population in Bedfordshire. The matter has been discussed in response to concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), who is sitting behind me. These factors are already taken into account in the NHS formula. It is true that Bedfordshire remains below target. The formula is currently being reviewed and all the factors will be taken into account. It is worth pointing out that, while population has grown by 2 per cent. in the past three years, funding in Bedfordshire has increased by 33 per cent. during the same period. Other areas have also received large increases which are greater than the corresponding rise in their populations. The problem for Bedfordshire, however, is that its increased funding has not been sufficient to meet its population's needs.
	As the hon. Gentleman will know, in December, we announced next year's 53.4 billion NHS budget and explained how it would be distributed among health authorities. For Bedfordshire, the cash increase means a total budget of 414.9 million. In addition, an extra 425 million of earmarked NHS funding is available for 200203 to enable capacity to be built up across the health and social care system. Together with the additional 200 million being allocated to councils next year for tackling delayed transfers of care, the funding means that a total of 625 million will be available to health and social service communities for tackling these capacity issues. In Bedfordshire, as in other parts of the country, the NHS is therefore better placed than ever before to respond to winter pressures.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that the matter is about not only the NHS, but social services, where investment has also been growing substantially in real terms under this Government. Bedfordshire has benefited from that investment. This year, it has received an increase of more than 9 per cent. in its total personal social services resources. It will receive substantial extra funds for personal social services next year. Overall next year, personal social services will continue to increase by a further 680 million, or 6.5 per cent. in real terms. Resources for personal social services have increased between 1996-97 and 2002-03 by an average real-terms rate of 3.2 per cent. a year. That compares with average annual real terms growth of 0.1 per cent. per annum between 1992-93 and 1996-97 under the previous Government. Bedfordshire's personal social services standard spending assessment will increase by a further 6 per cent., the carers' grant by a further 22 per cent. and its children's grant by a further 14 per cent.
	The hon. Gentleman said that Bedfordshire social services face difficulties this year through financial pressures. I acknowledge that the council has experienced budgetary problems. I understand that the county council expects an overspend this year of more than 3 million and that the council's financial problems primarily relate to children's services and services for adults with learning difficulties. The council has had to fund external placements, which have proved expensive. However, I am pleased to learn that, following staff changes and recruitment, the council is developing a five-year children's strategy, in which the voluntary sector, including NCH, is expected to play a key role. The strategy aims to reduce the council's external spending and make a bigger shift to family support. There has also been a review of financial systems to ensure clear accountability for budgets.
	Bedfordshire has also benefited from additional money specifically to reduce bed blocking. In October, the Government announced a further 300 million of new funding for social care over two years. An agreement, entitled Building Capacity and Partnership in Care was published on 9 October. We expect local social services and health authorities to adopt it. It will lead to genuine improvements in planning and commissioning services, and ensure continuing good quality care for those who currently use them.
	We all agree that we need to solve the problems that lead to people waiting in acute hospital beds when they could be better cared for elsewhere. That problem is not new; the proportion of older people who have had to wait while their discharge is arranged has fallen steadily in the past four years. However, we need to continue to improve the overall quality and range of care to older people so that they receive the right care at the right time.

Alistair Burt: I do not intend to pick up on every point that the Minister has made, but will she deal more fully with the last point that she mentioned? Like the county and the NHS trust, I welcomed and was grateful for the amount of money to help with bed blocking. However, I made the point that the money was time limited and could not therefore be included in future budgets. That is worrying. The solutions cannot contribute to long-term changes unless there is some certainty about the future. The Minister may not be able to make a commitment about that now, but I should be grateful if she appreciated the point and said something about the longer-term availability of such funding. As she observed from the figures, we are not considering a short-term problem that will easily go away.

Yvette Cooper: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to increase the amount of forward planning that local areas are able to make. That is why we have moved towards giving local health authorities greater certainty about the sort of allocations that they can expect in future. It is also why we specified the funding out of the 300 million not only for this year but for next year. Clearly, we need to continue to provide greater long-term certainty. However, it is also important to allocate additional money without being too hidebound by the need to plan every single extra penny for the future and end up not allocating the money that we have in the short term.
	Of the 200 million that is available next year, Bedfordshire's allocation is 943,000, as the hon. Gentleman said. Those are significant sums, and I understand that the council plans to use the extra funds for more long-term, residential and nursing home care, to increase home care and intermediate care capacity and to increase rehabilitation outside hospital. The council is also funding a recruitment drive for residential care staff, and I believe that those initiatives will make a genuine difference to local people who receive services.
	Throughout the country, councils are using the money to invest in a wide range of new services to extend the range of services available to maintain the independence of people leaving hospital. They are setting up innovative schemes to provide additional care in sheltered housing, buying additional places in care homes for those who need such care, investing in specialist equipment and extra support for informal carers to enable people to return to their homes. Many councils have also extended their rapid response teams.
	Nationally, we have already seen about a 6 per cent. drop since September in the number of delays, and most councils are on target to deliver their contribution to the national reduction of more than 1,000 beds blocked by March 2002.
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Dan Norris.]

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of care home capacity. Residential care and nursing home capacity cross the country is roughly the same today as it was four years ago. It is important to look beyond the headline figures on closures of homes, and to consider the number of beds and the capacity provided as well. The position in Bedfordshire shows that, although the number of residential homes has fallen slightly from 130 in 1998 to 129 in 2001, this has resulted in only four fewer beds.
	The position in the nursing care sector is even better. There were 40 nursing homes in 2001, compared with 38 in 1998, and the number of available beds increased from 1,146 in 1998 to 1,520 in 2001. All this, together with increases in the amount of home care providedfrom 460,000 hours to 600,000 hours in the last yearand in the development of additional intermediate care services increases the capacity to help to deal with the problem of needing to move people out of the acute sector in Bedfordshire.
	The issue is not simply one of resources. It is also a question of how the money is used. I understand that one of the factors involved in the rising number of blocked beds in Bedford hospital was weakness in the planning and operational processes at the trust, which did not come to light while there were fewer winter pressures. I am informed that the new chief executive is assembling a new management team, with the emphasis on improving operational management planning and involving clinical staff. The trust's modernisation team is also busy redesigning services to streamline them and to increase capacity.
	There has also been considerable support for local areas across the country to help them to modernise and reform, and to reduce delayed discharges. The NHS's performance management at national, regional and local level has a key role to play in managing the reduction of the numbers of delayed transfers of care. The 200102 planning and priorities guidance made specific reference to what the NHS is required to do, and by when, to reduce delayed transfers of care.

Patrick Hall: I support the point that my hon. Friend was making about the new management team at Bedford hospital trust wishing to improve management systems to make maximum use of the capacity at the hospital. None the less, will she accept that there is a need for additional capacity, both in the hospital and out in the communityfor example, in relation to the John Bunyan ward in the former north wing site and to intermediate care outside?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a need for increased capacity right across the NHS, as well as in the community. That is why we have been investing ever greater resources in expanding the NHS and social care provision; we clearly need to go on doing so.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire was right to say that there was an increase in bed blocking in Bedfordshire at the beginning of this month. Action has been taken to bring the number of delayed discharges down. Bedfordshire is now better placed, as a result of the additional resources and the support that it has received, to plan to cope with the winter pressures. Clearly social services and health will need to go further, and I welcome the plans that they have put in place to progress that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford has also said, they will also need the new investment that will be forthcoming next year, but that new investment must be used for modernisation as well, so that they can best deal with delayed discharges this year and improve the situation further for next year, to ensure that every patient in Bedfordshire gets the best possible treatment in the NHS and in social care.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Ten o'clock.